We have previously published a legal update regarding whether an employer is obliged to accept a medical certificate on face value and the extent to which the employer can choose to query, disbelieve or disagree with it.1
In that case, the Fair Work Commission (the FWC) appeared to accept that an employer is not required to blindly accept medical certificates as proof of the facts therein. There however, the FWC found that the medical certificates should have been accepted. The medical certificates in question were very detailed, specifically addressing which parts of the job were contributing to the employee's inability to work. This was contrasted with certificates which simply said, for example, "X is unfit to work from A to B".
The recent case of Grant v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 1712 dealt with a similar question but with notably different facts.
Mr Grant was employed by BHP Coal Pty Ltd (BHP) as a boilermaker from 2003 until he was dismissed on 17 May 2013.
In October 2011, Mr Grant sustained a work related injury and subsequently reinjured himself a number of times. As at April 2013, Mr Grant had not worked for approximately 8 months and there had been little contact with BHP over this period.
On 2 April 2013, Mr Grant attempted to return to work. He produced a number of medical certificates that were drafted in the simplest possible terms, stating that he was "receiving treatment for MEDICAL CONDITION". The final certificate stated that Mr Grant was "fit to return to his normal duties as and from Monday April 1st 2013".
Mr Grant's supervisor was not satisfied. He required Mr Grant to attend an appointment with a medical practitioner, engaged by BHP, to determine whether there should be any restrictions on Mr Grant's work capacity. Mr Grant did not attend that appointment and failed to attend three further appointments.
Having provided a written warning, BHP terminated Mr Grant's employment on the basis that he had failed to attend the medical examinations and therefore failed to follow lawful and reasonable directions by his employer.
Mr Grant made an unfair dismissal application.
Commissioner Spencer rejected Mr Grant's application. Although she criticised some aspects of BHP's conduct, it was ultimately found that the concerns over Mr Grant's medical condition, and the insistence that he attend a further medical examination, were reasonable. The fact that he had a medical certificate stating that he was fit for work was not sufficient in the circumstances, particularly as it provided no substance to the nature of the medical condition or to any treatment that had taken place.
It also did not assist Mr Grant that, after the evidence had been heard but before the parties had made closing submissions, it emerged that Mr Grant was simultaneously making a workers compensation claim, alleging that he had a 20% degree of permanent impairment arising from the injury and that he "suffers pain and is restricted in his movement" – this claim was clearly at odds with his evidence and submissions in the unfair dismissal hearing.
This decision affirms the position that medical certificates are to be treated as important evidence but are not determinative. A medical certificate stating that an employee is fit for work does not absolve the employer from the obligation to ensure a safe system of work. It also highlights the importance of employees providing a detailed medical certificate. Broad statements of fitness or unfitness to work are likely to be of less value than detailed reports of the employee's medical condition, treatment, prognosis, recommended restrictions and the reasons for those restrictions.
Footnote
1 "Revenge of the Geek" – Marshall v Commonwealth of Australia (represented by the Bureau of Meteorology) [2012] FMCA 1052
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Kott Gunning is a proud member of 
