Can a valid Certificate Challenge a doctor s Certificate? Can employers question medical certificate? Can an employer refuse to provide more information about a medical condition? Situations like the one outlined about cause headaches for businesses.
Not only do businesses need to find (and pay for) replacement employees, but they also experience a reduction in productivity.
In these circumstances, while it is often tempting to discipline the employee, there are a number of risks that must first be considered. See full list on hrassured. Unfair dismissal claim 2. However, where there is evidence of dishonesty on the part of the employee, an employer may challenge a certificate by asking for further information from the treating practitioner (with the employee’s consent), questioning any inconsistencies in certificates, or requesting the employee attend an employer nominated treating practitioner for a second opinion.
It is clear from the cases that employers can dispute medical certificates in certain circumstances , and that the AMA’s position is slightly overstated. However, employers should act cautiously when questioning a medical certificate. If an employer decides not to challenge the medical opinion, or the result of the above procedure is confirmation of a serious medical condition supporting the basis for FMLA leave, an employer can request re-certification no more often than every thirty (30) days unless there is a significant change in circumstances , or the employer receives information to cast doubt on the certification.
An employee has provided a medical certificate as evidence of their absence from work due to a personal illness. The length of the period of illness was approximately two and a half weeks. The medical certificate simply states that the employee is unfit for work due to ‘medical illness’.
Because the employee has had a poor record with respect to absenteeism during the course of their employment and the lengthy period of absence in this instance, the employer asked the employee for more specific details regarding the reason for the absence. The employee refused to agree to this request. Question: Can the employer challenge a medical certificate and seek more specific information from the employee’s medical practitioner where the original certificate is vague in explaining the reason for the employee’s absence? Or is the medical certificate irrefutable proof that the employee was unfit for work for the specified period? Answer: Production of a medical certificate is usually regarded a. However, the employer may, in reasonable circumstances, seek further information from the medical practitioner who issued the certificate.
Reasonable circumstances’ could include occupational health and safety considerations, which may be relevant to the employee who is ill as well as other workers in the immediate workplace. Other circumstances may include the employer contacting the doctor to verify the veracity of a medical certificate (e.g. to determine whether it is fraudulent in any way). Diagnosis is generally defined to mean ‘the process of determining by examination the nature or cause of a diseased condition’. In attempting to obtain relevant information from the medical practitioner, the employer should only enquire on the basis of identifying the symptoms (rather than the cause) that prevented the employee from attending work and the relevance of those symptoms to the employee’s duties. Before providing any further information to the employer , the medical practitioner is usually required to obtain express consent from the patient before disclosure of the further relevant information to their employer.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has issued Guidelines for Medical Practitioners on Certificates Certifying Illness, which can be found on the AMA website.
Source:Paul Munro, IR Consultant, WorkplaceInfo. Generally it will only be where unusual or exceptional circumstances exist that an employer can reject the validity of a certificate. In attempting to obtain furtherinformation, an employer should only enquire on the basis of identifying thesymptoms and not the cause that prevented the employee from attending work, andthe relevance of those symptoms to the employee ’s duties.
Employers generally do not like their employees taking MC at work since it disrupts workflows and increases work burden on other employees in the same team. Medical certificates, or better known as MCs in Singapore, can be a contested issue in any workplace. Once again, a lay opinion that an activity is inconsistent with a certificate of medical unfitness will usually not be accepted.
Where an employer has confirmed the employee’s attendance with the doctor who has issued the medical certificate, the employer cannot insist that the employee provide more information about the medical condition, and their doctor is only legally required to state that the employee was unfit to attend work. While there are no strict rules on what type of evidence needs to be given, the evidence has to convince a reasonable person that the employee was genuinely entitled to the sick or carer’s leave. Turns out they can — under certain circumstances. This month Employment Relations Expert Thorunn Arnadottir joins the show to tell us how a small business owner can legitimately reject a medical certificate, and reveals the valid reasons for doing so. If an employer does not believe the certification states an adequate need for FMLA leave or that the medical condition fails to meet the definition under the statute, the employer is permitted to seek a second opinion from another physician.
If an employee later provides you with a medical certificate to substantiate their absence, you will need compelling evidence to challenge it – however, it is possible. The medical profession agreed to these rules for the guidance of the medical profession only. Therefore an employer cannot reject a medical certificate if it does not comply with these rules.
An employer can only reject a medical certificate if it does not comply with section of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.