Massey-Diez v. Univ. of Iowa Cmty. Med. Servs., Inc.
Decision Date | 27 June 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 15–2924,15–2924 |
Citation | 826 F.3d 1149 |
Parties | Madonna Massey–Diez, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. University of Iowa Community Medical Services, Inc., Defendant–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Sasha Lace Monthei, of Cedar Rapids, IA.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Frances M. Haas, of Cedar Rapids, IA. The following attorney also appeared on the appellee brief; Mary Elizabeth Funk, of Des Moines, IA.
Before MURPHY, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
BEAM
, Circuit Judge.
Madonna Massey–Diez, a physician assistant (PA) formerly employed by University of Iowa Community Medical Services, Inc. (UICMS), appeals the district court's1 adverse grant of summary judgment on claimed violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). We affirm.
Because this case comes to us on UICMS's motion for summary judgment, we portray the facts in the light most favorable to Massey–Diez. Loftness Specialized Farm Equip., Inc. v. Twiestmeyer , 818 F.3d 356, 360 (8th Cir. 2016)
. Massey–Diez began working for UICMS at its North Liberty, Iowa, clinic as a PA in September 2009 under a year-to-year employment contract. In 2011 UICMS adopted “EPIC,” a software program used to manage patient records, track patient phone calls, review laboratory tests, and handle prescription refills. Promptly updating a patient's medical information on EPIC after the patient's visit (also known as “charting”) is important for billing and for presenting providers with current information about the patient. In order to encourage prompt charting, UICMS employs nonbinding “Standards of Excellence,” which require that dictation be done within 24 hours of a patient's visit and that once that dictation is transcribed, the transcription be reviewed and signed within the next 48 hours. The standards also require a patient's charting generally “be completed within seven days” of a patient's visit and that transcribed dictation in particular “be filed in the medical record within five working days of [a] visit.”2
Apart from the Standards of Excellence, UICMS also requires that providers follow its “Completion of Documentation Policy,” enforced through a disciplinary procedure. The policy defines a provider as “noncompliant” if he is responsible for thirty or more unsigned records that are, on average, fourteen or more days old. If a provider is noncompliant, he is subject to “Level 1” discipline, wherein he is formally notified of his noncompliance and given seven days to complete all delinquent charting. Failure to do so within the seven-day period subjects the provider to “Level 2” discipline, which consists of notice and paid leave until all delinquent charting is completed. Failure to complete all delinquent charting in fourteen days results in “Level 3” discipline, in which the provider's employment is suspended pending completion of all delinquent charting.
Massey–Diez by all accounts provided excellent patient care. She had difficulty, however, with promptly updating patient records on EPIC. Providers were scheduled in back-to-back blocks of time, each allotted to a scheduled patient. Providers were expected to both attend to the patient and complete their charting within that period or to complete the charting at another time. These blocks were not long enough for Massey–Diez to do both, and apparently she was unsuccessful in having the clinic adjust her schedule to address this issue. North Liberty clinic manager Heidi Hansen advised supervisors about Massey–Diez's issue with updating patient records in a timely fashion as early as July 2012. By that fall, Massey–Diez had over 200 delinquent records. In a November 2012 e-mail exchange Hansen wrote UICMS executive director Terry Protextor, assistant administrator Mike Hayden, and Massey–Diez's supervising physician Dr. Powers to express her “concern[ ] about Madonna and how far back her missing notes go.” Dr. Powers replied to Protextor, Hayden, and Hansen:
Massey–Diez subsequently received a “below expectations” rating on a performance evaluation for prioritizing and completing work assignments on time. She received notice of Level 1 discipline on November 30, 2012, and notice of Level 2 discipline in early December. Sometime in December, she caught up on her charting. She fell behind again the following February 2013. On March 21 she reached Level 2 discipline for the second time.
Also on March 21, 2013, Massey–Diez attended a meeting with Protextor, Hayden, and Hansen. They discussed her tardy charting and agreed to try a new “open” scheduling method that might give Massey–Diez the opportunity to complete charting between patients. The meeting minutes describe some “Take-aways”: “1) by the end of next week notes have to be caught up so you are w/in 48 hours to current”; and Additionally, a “Counseling & Disciplinary Action Report” signed by Massey–Diez stated: Massey–Diez testified that she did not leave that meeting with the understanding that the renewal of her contract was in jeopardy and that she believed that during the 90-day period her objective was to stay in compliance with the Completion of Documentation Policy, rather than the 48-hour standard. In an April 3 e-mail, however, Massey–Diez described her “knowing there is no intent to renew my contract in September.” In another, April 15, e-mail, she described the subjects discussed at the March 21 meeting as including “48 hour turnaround on notes, [and] intent to not renew my contract in September.” Massey–Diez caught up on her charting, but she fell behind once more in May and June of 2013.
On June 17, 2013, Massey–Diez broke her foot and took FMLA leave for a serious medical condition. Her leave ran until June 30, at which point it became intermittent, and it ended on July 8. As of the date she took leave, she had as many as thirty-one incomplete charts that were five or more days old and so was in violation of the 48–hour turnaround time agreed to in the March 21 meeting. At that time, however, she was compliant under the Completion of Documentation Policy. While she was on FMLA leave, Massey–Diez was contacted for information on when she would return to work. She also was asked to attend to her EPIC inbox and the EPIC inbox of another employee named Savita from home. This included responding to patient phone calls, attending to prescription refills, sending messages, performing triage, and reviewing laboratory tests. Massey–Diez testified that at no point while on FMLA leave did she decline to perform the work requested of her nor did she express any reservations about doing so. Further, Massey–Diez testified that no one at UICMS stated or implied that her failure to comply with directives to work would result in an adverse employment action. She also testified: “When they were asking me to do things from home, I basically did it because I felt like I had to”; and, On June 26, Massey–Diez came into the clinic for part of a day to see patients before her foot was fully healed.
The record presents the following specific communications between Massey–Diez and UICMS: On June 17, Hansen text messaged Massey–Diez to ask, at the suggestion of Dr. Powers, whether she would be able to see patients while she was on crutches. Massey–Diez indicated she could not. On June 21, Hansen text messaged Massey–Diez that she had heard from Dr. Powers that Massey–Diez may be back the next week. Massey–Diez replied that she planned to try but that she did not want to commit to doing so at that time. She also stated in her reply: Massey–Diez indicated that she hoped her time spent on her inbox and possibly transitioning back to part-time could offset her depletion of paid time off (PTO) while on FMLA leave so that she would retain some PTO to use to visit her family later that summer. Hansen suggested that Hayden may have some ideas for how Massey–Diez could return to work given her injury. Massey–Diez e-mailed Hayden that day:
Hayden responded, suggesting she could either see patients on a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Persson v. Bos. Univ., CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-14037-JGD
...work, only one of which pertained to her job duties and simply asked her to locate an email. See Massey-Diez v. Univ. of Iowa Cmty. Med. Servs., Inc., 826 F.3d 1149, 1158-59 (8th Cir. 2016), and cases cited ("For purposes of summary judgment, courts have drawn the line along a distinction b......
-
Mell v. Minn. State Agric. Soc'y
...as a "discrimination" claim. Pulczinski , 691 F.3d at 1006 (citations omitted); see also Massey-Diez v. Univ. of Iowa Cmty. Med. Servs., Inc. , 826 F.3d 1149, 1157 n.5 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting "an unresolved difference of opinion" in the Eighth Circuit as to whether a discrimination claim ar......
-
D'Onofrio v. Vacation Publications, Inc.
...FMLA rights so long as working while on leave is not a condition of continued employment. See Massey–Diez v. Univ. of Iowa Cmty. Med. Servs., Inc. , 826 F.3d 1149, 1159–60 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting that FMLA regulations "permit voluntary and uncoerced acceptance of work by employees on medica......
-
Orr v. S. Dakota Bd. of Regents
...Ark, for Med. Seis., 559 F.3d 855, 861 (8th Cir. 2009)). “Direct evidence may be circumstantial if the inferred causal link is strong enough.” Id. (quoting Griffith v. City Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004)). “[D]irect evidence is evidence ‘showing a specific link between the al......
-
Chapter § 1-49 29 CFR § 825.220. Protection for Employees Who Request Leave or Otherwise Assert FMLA Rights
...appeal lend strong support for employers to use in defeating interference claims. • Massey-Diez v. Univ. of Iowa Cmty. Med. Servs., Inc., 826 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 2016) (this is very pro-employer case even though the employer asked the employee on leave to work from home; she did not protest......
-
Chapter § 1-61 29 CFR § 825.311. Intent to Return to Work
...there was also evidence that employer was pressuring employee to return to work). • Massey-Diez v. Univ. of Iowa Cmty. Med. Servs., Inc., 826 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 2016) (court holds, in affirming dismissal of an interference claim based on the employer contacting the employee while on leave;......