Knaup v. Molina Healthcare of Ohio, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:19-cv-166 |
| Parties | ABBY KNAUP, Plaintiff, v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF OHIO, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 20)
Plaintiff Abby Knaup, a former employee of Defendant Molina Healthcare of Ohio, Inc., claims that Molina violated the Family and Medical Leave Act by interfering with her entitlement to take leave under the Act and then engaging in retaliatory termination. Knaup suffered from anxiety and depression in 2018, leading her to apply for leave under the Act. Molina denied her application through its third-party administrative contractor that processed leave requests, The Hartford, asserting that she had failed to submit a timely medical certification supporting her request for leave. When Knaup did not return to work after the denial of her leave requests, she was terminated. At the heart of this case is a dispute about whether Knaup received an extension of the deadline for submitting her medical certification after calling Hartford's customer service to seek clarification of a letter regarding her application—a letter, like the majority of Hartford's and Molina's letters to Knaup, that was anything but clear. For the reasons that follow, Knaup demonstrates triable issues of fact for her interference claim but not her retaliation claim.
In April 2017, Knaup began to work for Molina as a Care Review Processor. (ECF No. 19-1 at PageID #77, 81.) Knaup supported nurses by helping patients obtain their prescriptions and other medical supplies, for example, canes or blood pressure cuffs, during the first thirty days of a patient's discharge from a hospital. (Id. at PageID #81, 85.) The object of Knaup's job was to help prevent rehospitalizations of patients. (Id.)
Knaup testified that during her tenure at Molina, she endured grossly unprofessional bullying and harassment. Three of her peers regularly bullied her, primarily by falsely reporting to human resources that she was having a sexual relationship with her supervisor. (Id. at PageID #97-99.) As a result, Knaup was required to meet with human resources three times. (Id.) During the summer of 2018, Knaup reported this harassment multiple times to two supervisors, including the supervisor with whom she was accused of having a relationship. (Id. at PageID #99-101.) Only this supervisor responded, stating that he would put Knaup and the three employees harassing her in a room so that they could "duke it out." (Id. at PageID #103.) Due to this situation, Knaup would become nauseous and vomit if she had to go to work. (Id. at PageID #98.)
Consequently, Knaup applied for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") as well as under Molina's short-term disability policy, for anxiety and depression. A series of communications to Knaup from Molina and Hartford, Molina's third-party administrative contractor, ensued.
On October 10, 2018, Knaup filed an application for leave under the FMLA and Molina's short-term disability policy, and the next day Hartford replied via letter. (ECF No. 20-2 at PageID #579.) The letter noted that Hartford had reviewed her application and determined her eligibilitystatus for the types of leave she requested. For leave under the FMLA from October 10, 2018 to January 1, 2019, the letter noted that she was "[e]ligible," meaning she "met the requisite criteria to be considered for leave." The letter also noted that for FMLA leave after January 1, 2019, she was eligible but would be unable to take the time because she would "have already exhausted [her] available leave time under the FMLA." And for leave under Molina's short-term disability policy from October 10, 2018 to January 2, 2019, the letter stated that her eligibility status was "[p]ending [d]etermination," meaning that "a decision has not yet been made regarding your request." (Id.) Whether this referred to her eligibility to take leave or the actual request for leave itself is ambiguous because Knaup's eligibility status was not a request, though her application for leave obviously was.
After the summary of her apparent eligibility statuses for each type of leave, the letter continued. First, it directed her to keep in touch with Molina and Hartford about her leave. (Id.) Second, it stated, "[o]nce we obtain the necessary information from your health care provider to support your leave request, due by 10/26/2018, we will make a determination to approve or deny your request for Short Term Disability (STD) benefits." (Id. (emphasis in original).) The letter did not mention that Knaup's FMLA leave request required this documentation, nor did the letter otherwise indicate that any next steps applied to the FMLA leave request.
Hartford then sent Knaup a letter on October 28, 2018. (Id. at PageID #582.) The letter stated that Harford had The October 28 letter stated that Knaup could submit the information within 60 days for evaluation or she could appeal the denial. (Id.) A separatelyenclosed letter noted that her FMLA and short-term disability applications were denied because "paperwork has not been returned." (Id. at PageID #584.)
It is unclear whether Hartford sought a medical certification or merely Knaup's doctor's contact information. The October 11 letter referred to information that it would receive from Knaup's doctor and the enclosed letter from October 28 referred to paperwork, suggesting Hartford required a medical certification. But the primary October 28 letter appears to reference contact information for Knaup's doctor which Knaup was supposed to provide. To clarify the meaning of the October 28 letters, Knaup called Hartford's customer service line. (ECF No. 19-1 at PageID #117.) She stated that "I told them that I couldn't get into the doctor until November 8th because my doctor -- my doctor's schedule was full, and they stated that was fine, to submit the paperwork when you visit him." (Id. at PageID #118.)
During Knaup's appointment with Dr. Short, her primary care provider, on November 8, 2018, he noted her diagnosis was depression and anxiety on the medical certification form. (ECF No. 20-2 at PageID #586.) Dr. Short transcribed Knaup's symptoms as she reported them, "depression, anxiety, irritability," and reported his own observations of her symptoms, stating that "patient has increased stress, depression, and anxiety with her job" and that this made it "difficult to perform at her job." (Id.) In his doctor's notes, he wrote that she was in to follow up about her anxiety and depression, which were related to her workplace. (ECF No. 21-2 at PageID #646.) He noted Knaup stated that she was unable to work due to difficulties concentrating and that she was not "ready to go back to work yet." Dr. Short wrote that her depression had improved to mild depression since her previous visit in October, according to a PHQ-9 test. (Id.)
Under the functionality section of the medical certification form, Dr. Short made several findings. First, he marked that he did not recommend that Knaup stop working, but he did check a box indicating that her symptoms were "severe enough to preclude the patient from social/occupational functioning" as of October 9, 2018. (ECF No. 20-2 at PageID #587.) He explained that Knaup had "difficulty communicating with coworkers, difficulty concentrating." He also stated that "[t]he patient can perform any work in her field that they are capable of if . . . the environment is appropriate." (Id.)
Dr. Short's diagnosis and notations on the medical certification form are consistent with Dr. Short's notes from Knaup's October appointment. On October 9, 2018, the day before Knaup requested leave from Molina, he wrote that she had an appointment for an "acute visit" for depression and anxiety. (ECF No. 21-2 at PageID #644.) During the October visit, he administered a PHQ-9 test, which indicated the Knaup was suffering from moderate depression. He noted her finances and job were the primary causes. (Id.) He prescribed medication to treat anxiety and depression. (Id. at PageID #645.)
After Knaup's appointment, Dr. Short faxed the medical certification form to Hartford, and Hartford faxed a letter on the same day to Dr. Short asking for clarification. First, the letter asked, "[i]f you opine symptoms of anxiety and depression are of such severity to preclude occupational functioning, please clarify if you have considered a referral to a mental health provider for more intensive treatment?" (ECF No. 20-2 at PageID #592.) Indicating that he had made such an opinion, Dr. Short stated that Knaup had declined a referral. Next, the letter asked if Knaup could perform her job with a different manager, department, or employer, to which Dr. Short answered, "[y]es, patient has reported issues with her coworkers resulting in her anxiety." Finally, the letterasked if Knaup found alternative employment, did Dr. Short "see a psychiatric contraindication precluding work function in the general workplace," and Dr. Short answered, "no." (Id.)
On November 21, 2018, Knaup received a letter from Hartford indicating that (Id. at PageID #594.) The letter...
To continue reading
Request your trial