## Facts

- Audrey M. Seidle worked for a subsidiary of Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company and was subject to an attendance policy limiting unexcused absences.
- From October 12–15, 1993, Seidle missed four consecutive workdays to care for her four-year-old son, Terrance Johnson, who was ill and could not attend day care.
- On October 12, Terrance was seen once by a physician, diagnosed with otitis media with fever, prescribed a 10-day antibiotic course, and advised to return for a follow-up visit in two weeks.
- Terrance’s fever and ear pain resolved within about one day; he remained tired with low appetite for several days.
- By the evening of October 14, Terrance had been fever-free for about 48 hours and was medically able to return to day care, but Seidle stated the day-care facility would not readmit him due to a runny nose.
- Seidle did not take Terrance back for the recommended follow-up visit.
- Provident terminated Seidle after the four absences, treating them as unexcused under its policy.
- Seidle sued under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), alleging her absences were protected leave to care for a child with a “serious health condition.”

## Issues

1. Whether a child’s ear infection treated with a single physician visit and home antibiotics, with brief fever and symptoms and no inpatient care or follow-up treatment, qualifies as a “serious health condition” under the FMLA.
2. If not, whether the employee’s four-day absence was unprotected such that the employer could lawfully apply its attendance policy and terminate employment.

## Decision

- The court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment and denied the employee’s cross-motion.
- The court held the child’s condition did not involve inpatient care and did not constitute “continuing treatment by a health care provider” as required by the FMLA’s definition of “serious health condition.”
- Because the absence was not FMLA-protected, the termination based on the attendance policy did not violate the FMLA.

## Legal Principles

- FMLA leave to care for a child is available only if the child has a “serious health condition,” defined as an illness or condition involving either (1) inpatient care or (2) continuing treatment by a health care provider.
- A short-term, routine illness with rapid improvement, a single office visit, and home administration of prescribed medication—without hospitalization or ongoing medical supervision—does not necessarily constitute “continuing treatment” under the FMLA.
- When material facts about the illness and treatment are not genuinely disputed, whether those facts meet the statutory definition of “serious health condition” may be decided as a matter of law at summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the FMLA claim, concluding that a routine childhood ear infection treated by one doctor visit and home antibiotics, with symptoms resolving quickly and no inpatient care or ongoing provider supervision, was not a “serious health condition,” leaving the employer free to enforce its attendance policy and terminate employment for unexcused absences.


Seidle v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co., 871 F. Supp. 238 (E.D. Pa. 1994)