What is at stake in this decision?
Certificates of incapacity for work are the statutory evidence of illness-related inability to perform work. In practice, they are considered strong—but not invulnerable—proof.
The Düsseldorf Regional Labour Court had to decide on a claim for continued payment of wages following dismissal. The employee lost the case because the evidential value of their certificate of incapacity for work was undermined, and full proof of incapacity could not be established.
Who should pay particular attention to this ruling?
The decision is especially relevant for:
- Employers in disputes over continued payment of wages
- Human resources departments and HR managers
- Companies dealing with illnesses close to termination
- Legal representatives in labour law
In short, any situation in which a certificate of incapacity for work is not entirely consistent or uncontested.
The evidential value of the certificate: strong, but challengeable
The court reaffirmed the Federal Labour Court’s case law:
A properly issued certificate of incapacity does not give rise to a legal presumption. Its evidential value may be undermined if actual circumstances cast doubt on the illness.
Timing is particularly critical in cases of dismissal.
Important:
Exact alignment between the notice period and the duration of incapacity is not required. Even minor discrepancies do not prevent the evidential value from being challenged.
Consequences of undermined evidential value
If the evidential value of a certificate is undermined, the certificate alone is no longer sufficient.
The employee must provide full proof of incapacity for work.
In practice, this usually involves:
👉 Evidence through witnesses
👉 Typically: the treating physician
The physician as witness – the critical weak point
The ruling clearly illustrates what courts focus on when evaluating a physician’s testimony.
Key questions include:
- Does the physician know the employee’s specific duties?
- Is the sick note based on the physician’s own examination or solely on the patient’s account?
- How frequent and extensive was the contact?
- Are the diagnosis, duration, and severity of incapacity plausibly explainable?
If there is a lack of substance, detail, or recall, even a physician’s testimony cannot establish full proof of incapacity.
In the case at hand, the physician failed to meet these requirements.
Practical significance
The decision underscores that wage continuation disputes are no longer merely a formality. Labour courts are increasingly rigorous in their evidential review of incapacity claims—while avoiding excessive demands on the employer’s submissions.
For practice, this means:
- Illnesses occurring close to termination should be carefully analysed
- Supporting evidence must be identified and documented
- Physician testimonies must be realistically assessed and prepared
Practical tip:
Based on multiple physician testimonies, I have developed a structured checklist that allows the reliability of medical statements to be systematically evaluated.
