Employees don’t get to cure a fraudulent FMLA certification

The story

In May 2020, Daniel took FMLA leave to care for his ailing mother. A year and a half later, he again requested FMLA leave for the same purpose.

To get his 2021 leave approved, Daniel was asked to submit an FMLA certification. He filled out the certification, including the third section titled “HEALTH CARE PROVIDER,” which is supposed to be completed by a medical professional based on the professional’s “medical knowledge, experience, and examination of the patient.”

Daniel filled out this section of the form based on information from the certification for his prior FMLA leave and his knowledge of his mother’s condition. When he took his mother to a doctor’s appointment, Daniel gave the certification to a registered nurse, who signed it. Daniel then faxed it to the company’s HR department and to his supervisor, Andrew.

The employer saw a problem with the certification, as it appeared that Daniel had filled out the section that was supposed to be completed by the doctor. The employer called the doctor to ensure it was signed by the nurse. The nurse said that he didn’t know he “was signing something regarding family medical leave.”

On November 18, Andrew called Daniel to discuss the situation, and Daniel admitted to filling out the form himself but denied deceiving the nurse. He also offered to take another certification to the doctor’s office so that the doctor could fill it out. Andrew doubted Daniel’s honesty and fired him. Daniel sued.

In court

Daniel argued that the employer violated the FMLA when it contacted his mother’s medical provider before giving him a chance to “cure” the certification. He thought the certification was deficient, entitling him to a chance to fix it.

The employer argued that the right to cure a certification is limited only to situations where the certification is incomplete or is vague, which Daniel’s certification wasn’t. The employer thought it was fraudulent.

The court held that employers may contact a certifying medical provider to authenticate an employee’s FMLA certification without first allowing the employee to cure any inauthenticity. A suspicious certification is neither incomplete nor vague.

Mook v. Hall, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1677, August 4, 2026.

Key to remember: Employers that receive complete and sufficient, but suspicious FMLA certifications don’t have to give employees a chance to fix them before contacting the doctor for authentication.

Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws, and seeking advice when needed.