Federal Labor Court to overturn a certificate of incapacity for work

January 09, 2024

The Federal Labor Court decided in its judgment of December 13.12.2023, 5 (Az: 137 AZR 23/XNUMX) to shake the evidentiary value of certificates of incapacity for work. The probative value of (subsequent) certificates of incapacity for work can be shaken if, after receiving notice of termination, the incapacitated employee submits one or more subsequent certificates that precisely cover the duration of the notice period and he takes up new employment immediately after the termination of the employment relationship.

1. FACTS

The plaintiff employee, who was represented by a labor law attorney, had been employed as an assistant by the defendant employer since March 2021. On May 02.05.2022nd, 02, he submitted a certificate of incapacity for work for the period from May 06.05.2022nd to May 02.05.2022th, 03.05.2022. The defendant terminated the employment relationship as of May 31.05.2022, 06.05.2022 in a letter dated May 20.05.2022, 31.05.2022, which was received by the plaintiff on May XNUMX, XNUMX. With a certificate from May XNUMXth, XNUMX up to and including May XNUMXth, XNUMX, the plaintiff extended the sick leave with the ongoing diagnosis. The plaintiff employee then submitted a third certificate, which classified him as unfit for work until May XNUMX, XNUMX. This included a further diagnosis of an unspecified stressful condition.

As of June 01.06.2022, XNUMX, the plaintiff was able to work again and took up new employment. The employer then refused to continue paying wages. She justified this by saying that the sick note was issued until the end of the employment relationship, while the man's new job was supposed to start the day after. In her opinion, the evidentiary value of the certificates of incapacity for work presented was therefore shaken. However, the plaintiff objected to this because the inability to work had already existed before the notice of termination was received and had his lawyer file a payment claim against the company before the labor court.

The Hildesheim Labor Court and Lower Saxony State Labor Court upheld the lawsuit seeking continued payment of wages for the period from May 01st to May 31.05.2022st, 07. The defendant's appeal before the Federal Labor Court was partially successful - based on the period from May 31.05.2022th to May XNUMXst, XNUMX.

2. DECISION

According to the Federal Labor Court, in order to undermine the evidentiary value of a certificate of incapacity for work, it is always a matter of assessing the overall circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, it is not decisive whether it was a case of dismissal by the employee or a dismissal by the employer and whether one or more certificates of incapacity for work were presented as proof of incapacity to work.

According to the BAG, the LAG correctly recognized that the evidentiary value of the certificate dated May 02.05.2022, XNUMX was not shaken because there was no temporal coincidence between the start of the incapacity for work and the receipt of the notice of termination.

However, the probative value of the certificates of incapacity for work dated May 06.05.2022, 20.05.2022 and May XNUMX, XNUMX was shaken because there was a temporal coincidence between the precise extension of the incapacity for work determined in the subsequent certificates and the notice period and the plaintiff took up new employment immediately after the termination of the employment relationship. For this reason, the plaintiff bears the full burden of proof of the existence of incapacity to work due to illness as a prerequisite for the entitlement to continued payment of wages Section 3 Paragraph 1 EFZG for the period from May 07th to May 31.05.2022st, XNUMX.

In the absence of findings from the State Labor Court, the matter should be referred back to the State Labor Court for a new hearing and decision.

3. CONCLUSION

The decision of the Federal Labor Court continues the case law on the changed requirements for the evidentiary value of medical certificates. If there are doubts about sick leave, especially in connection with dismissals, employers are recommended to take a close look at whether the evidentiary value of the AU certificate can be undermined and continued payment of wages should be refused. However, the circumstances of the individual case remain decisive in determining the value of the evidence. The decision does not leave employees without protection or undermine the right to continued payment of wages, since a change in the evidentiary value of a medical certificate does not automatically lead to the loss of the right to continued payment of wages, but rather the burden of proof falls back on the employee.