This is the first time I've encountered this.  If Annie, my employee, wants to have her doctor deal directly with our disability insurer on the insurance claim with respect to the paperwork related to the claim, is there an HR reason why I would not want to allow that?

It would be a departure from our usual procedure. Typically we receive the disability application form from the EE and physician and send it to the insurer..  that way we can follow and push to have the check generated as quickly as possible to minimize any gap in salary continuation.  We have found that if we hand the form off and wait till it arrives at the insurer's it takes its sweet time getting there and the EE is left to suffer the consequences of delayed pay, and HR has to do extra work to reconcile payroll for 3rd party pay.

Annie has disclosed to me the disability, and she just does not want the documentation to be on site if she has any choice about it.  I would say it is because she feels it's a sensitive condition and doesn't want there to be any chance that documentation exists that she doesn't have control over.  I don't think it's a specific concern (as in she doesn't trust individuals in HR) but more the knowledge that the document is sitting there to possibly be viewed by someone in the future.

As I see it you have raised three issues. One is the FMLA which you have handled and I assume you are satisfied with.

The second is a payroll issue which comes down to a matter of your policy. Deviating from your business practice comes with a different set of problems especially if others want to follow and do the same thing. You have stated that you have been down that road and it has not worked very well in the past. Could you do it? I suppose so, but I would be concerned for the reason that you stated for doing it.

That is the third thing, confidentiality. If the ee is out on FML then you already have the specific reason listed in the FML Medical Certification if you are using the most recent DOL form. How would that change if the ee dealt directly with the insurer? Further, the company has a responsibility and legal obligation for medical confidentiality, which I am sure you keep very well. Recognizing the reticence on the ee's part is a compassionate concern but it should not replace the company's responsibility or rights toward FMLA, your payroll or the way you deal with the insurer. I would also be concerned for the bigger picture of the other employees who may want to deviate because inadvertently you have allowed them to distrust the company.

I am just one head (who handles FMLA for my company) opining on your question. Could be that others will feel entirely different. I await my most worthy colleagues comments.

Thanks, Cappy, that's helpful.

I agree with Cappy.  In general, I wouldn't do anything to reduce the Company's rights under FMLA by voluntarily taking myself out of the picture.

 

The longer you play in the HR sandbox, the more you will appreciate the need not to make exceptions for people when the exception does not have a basis in legal requirement (e.g., ADA accomodation), safety, or a clear business need.  Other kinds of exceptions have a way of haunting you later.

TXHRGuy:

The longer you play in the HR sandbox, the more you will appreciate the need not to make exceptions for people when the exception does not have a basis in legal requirement (e.g., ADA accomodation), safety, or a clear business need.  Other kinds of exceptions have a way of haunting you later.

 

You are so right.  We could probably do another thread on strategies for holding firm when the rejected decision, or creating exceptions,  "makes sense" to staff at large.