Dean v. Meth Hosp of Dallas ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    ___________________________
    No. 98-11498
    ___________________________
    MARY DEAN,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    VERSUS
    METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS, INC.,
    doing business as Methodist Hospital
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ___________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    (3:97-CV-2431-P)
    ___________________________________________________
    November 17, 1999
    Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Mary Dean challenges the district court’s entry of summary
    judgment on her wrongful discharge action, brought under the Family
    Medical Leave Act(“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601.    For the reasons that
    follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    From 1979 until 1995, Dean worked as a respiratory therapist
    for Methodist Hospital.    In 1992, Dean became clinically depressed
    and sought treatment for depression and post-traumatic stress
    disorder.      In 1995, Jo Ann Arias, a Methodist Hospital Human
    Resources employee, told Dean that she could take medical leave
    under the FMLA.       The FMLA entitles any eligible employee who
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    suffers from “a serious health condition that makes the employee
    unable to perform the functions of [his/her] position” to take a
    maximum of twelve work weeks leave during any twelve-month period.
    29   U.S.C.   §   2612(a)(1).   On   April    18,   1995,   Dean   left   her
    employment at Methodist and began FMLA leave.
    In May 1995, Dean’s doctor, Inna Kogan, informed Arias that
    Dean no longer had a serious medical condition and could return to
    work.   Dean did not return to work, however.         She alleges in her
    affidavit that her doctor, in fact, advised her not to do so. Dean
    also explains that when Arias confronted her with Dr. Kogan’s
    statement, she became depressed and suffered a relapse.            Dean also
    states in her affidavit that Dr. Kogan called Arias to inform her
    of Dean’s poor health status.
    Both parties agree that shortly after this incident, Dean
    wrote a letter to Arias, requesting that the hospital grant her
    extended leave until July 1, 1995, and that the hospital treat the
    extended leave period as personal, rather than FMLA, leave.               Dean
    states in her affidavit that she attempted to return to the work at
    the hospital on July 10, nine days after her scheduled personal
    leave period had expired.        Dean explains that her supervisor
    informed her that she could not return to work at the hospital
    until she had spoken with Arias.         Dean finally spoke with Arias on
    July 24, 1995, at which time Arias informed Dean that Methodist did
    not have any positions available for her.
    The following month, Dean filed for unemployment benefits with
    the Texas Employment Commission.          On January 17, 1986, Methodist
    sent Dean a letter indicating that the hospital’s maximum six-month
    2
    personal leave period had expired on December 15, 1995, and that
    Dean needed to contact the hospital’s human resources department if
    she planned to apply for any open positions.          Dean failed to
    respond and   Methodist   subsequently   terminated   her   employment,
    retroactive to December 15, 1995.
    On August 27, 1997, Dean filed this lawsuit, alleging that
    Methodist had interfered with her employment rights under the FMLA.
    Methodist moved for summary judgment, arguing that: (1) Dean was no
    longer entitled to FMLA leave after May 17, 1995, when Dr. Kogan
    informed Methodist that Dean no longer had a serious medical
    condition; (2) Dean was not entitled to FMLA leave after June 15,
    because she had requested that the hospital grant her extended
    personal leave, rather than FMLA leave; and (3) Dean did not seek
    to return to work until July 24, 1995, thus exceeding the FMLA’s
    twelve-week leave period.
    The district court granted Methodist’s motion for summary
    judgment.   The court found that Dean failed to establish a genuine
    issue of fact as to whether she was entitled to leave after May 17,
    1995. The court further held as a matter of law that an employee’s
    FMLA leave period expires as soon as the employee ceases to suffer
    from a serious medical condition. Accordingly, the court concluded
    that once Dr. Kogan had determined that Dean no longer suffered
    from a disabling depression, she was no longer entitled to FMLA
    leave.
    3
    II
    We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary
    judgment, viewing questions of fact in the light most favorable to
    the party opposing the motion.   Horton v. City of Houston, 
    179 F.3d 188
    , 191 (5th Cir. 1999).   Summary judgment is proper only if “the
    pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
    on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no
    genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is
    entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
    see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 
    477 U.S. 317
    , 322-24, 
    106 S. Ct. 2548
    (1986).
    Dean argues that the district court erred in concluding that
    the summary judgment record did not reflect a genuine factual
    dispute as to whether she was entitled to FMLA leave after May 17,
    1995.   Dean concedes that she was able to return to work on May
    17, but argues that she suffered a relapse as a result of her
    confrontation with Arias.    Dean also argues that Methodist was
    aware of her relapse, as evidenced by the hospital’s willingness to
    grant her extended, albeit personal, leave.
    Dean has failed to present any evidence that would create a
    genuine issue of fact as to her relapse.        A dispute about a
    material fact is genuine only where “the evidence is such that a
    reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.”
    Shackleford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, __ F.3d __, 
    1999 WL 728105
    ,
    *3 (5th Cir. Oct. 4, 1999). On appeal, Dean offers nothing to
    4
    support her relapse theory other than conclusory statements in her
    affidavit, where she states that her confrontation with Arias
    “triggered additional depression and anxiety for me because Ms.
    Arias was accusing me of being dishonest.” These assertions cannot
    by themselves create a genuine issue of material fact.    “A summary
    assertion made in an affidavit is simply not enough evidence to
    raise a genuine issue of material fact.”       Melton v. Teachers
    Insurance & Annuity Assoc. of America, 
    114 F.3d 557
    , 559 (5th Cir.
    1997); see also Lechuga v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 
    949 F.2d 790
    , 798 (5th Cir. 1992)(“Conclusory statements in an affidavit do
    not provide facts that will counter summary judgment evidence, and
    testimony based on conjecture alone is insufficient to raise an
    issue to defeat summary judgment.”).   This is particularly true in
    light of Dr. Kogan’s uncontroverted and unambiguous statement to
    Arias that Dean was “able to return to work.” Dean’s affidavit,
    therefore, does not create a genuine issue of material fact as to
    whether Dean suffered a relapse.     See Murray v. Red Kap Indus.,
    Inc., 
    124 F.3d 695
    , 698 (5th Cir. 1997)(holding that plaintiff’s
    statement that she was unable to return to work was insufficient to
    create genuine issue of fact where doctor had previously released
    her to return to work.)
    The FMLA permits eligible employees to take a maximum of
    twelve workweeks of leave during any 12-month period. 29 U.S.C. §
    2612(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 825.200 (FMLA leave entitlement sets a 12-
    month limit).   Employees are eligible for FMLA leave only so long
    as they (1) suffer from a serious health condition and (2) are
    unable to perform the functions of their position.       29 U.S.C. §
    5
    2612(a)(1)(D); see Stoops v. One Call Communications, Inc., 
    141 F.3d 309
    , 314 (7th Cir. 1998)(holding that where employer has
    obtained physician’s certificate stating that employee is not
    entitled to FMLA leave, the employer does not violate FMLA by
    relying   on   that   certificate).       Because   the   summary   judgment
    evidence indicates that after May 17, 1995, Dean was able to
    perform the functions of her position she was not entitled to FMLA
    leave after that date.     Accordingly, the judgment of the district
    court is affirmed.
    AFFIRMED.
    6