Sen. Durbin: Jesse Jackson Jr. should explain his health situation

Sen. Dick Durbin on Monday put public pressure on fellow Illinois Democrat Jesse Jackson Jr. to explain what is preventing him from serving in the House.

"As a public official, there comes a point when you have a responsibility to tell the public what's going on," Durbin said at an event in Chicago. "If there is some medical necessity for him not to say more at this moment than I will defer to that. But he will have to soon make a report on what he's struggling with."

On June 25, Jackson's office first revealed that the congressman had been on a "medical leave of absence" from Congress for exhaustion since June 10. No additional details were offered until July 5, when Jackson's staff announced that the congressman was at an "inpatient medical facility" and his undisclosed condition was "more serious" than originally assumed.

Monday's statement from Durbin, the Senate majority whip, marks the most forceful public comment on Jackson's situation from his state party delegation.

Jackson's Republican and independent opponents in his 2nd District race have been publicly calling for more information since Jackson first revealed his situation.

"If I didn't show up for work for 15 days, there's a good chance that when I did try to make a call in, somebody's going to say, 'Yeah, we thought you were done. We went ahead and replaced you,'" Republican Brian Woodworth told Chicago's local NBC affiliate last week. "So I think he had an obligation to report whatever he's going through earlier."
Like some of Jackson's opponents, Durbin on Monday compared the congressman's situation to that of Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk, who in early May offered the public a deeply personal look via a Web video at his difficult recovery from an ischemic stroke.

If it's drugs, this should put him in good position to be President one day. Now, if he were born in Zimbabwe or Kenya, he would be a shoe-in for sure.

I always thought medical history is a confidential issue,,,that a doctors confirmation of the need for time off is legally binding,,,,

??

You are incorrect. I have been replaced when I was hospitalized before. A doctor can't give away your information. That doesn't mean a company has to keep you staffed.

of course, in these times a company can let you go for just about any reason they please

I had a surgery and returned to my job after because my employers werent BUTTHOLES I had no requirement to inform them of 'what' my condition was. Sorry you didnt have the same experience.

What nonsense.

Don't have a good sense of reality do you David? Shame

If I were a betting man I would bet that it's crack.

Actually due to the FMLA they have to..........

We should be made aware if any politicians are doing illegal drugs.

Why pay them to get wasted?

Nope,if you work for someone,and you get sick,you have to explain why you're absent from your Job!
.
He is a Public Figure,and The People are his Employers.

if I just say 'im sick', that suffices actually.


I have never been required to give more than an 'im not feeling well' or 'im going into a hospital, doctor,,,etc,,)

but, if he says nothing, questions arise.

Proof of Illness

Sometimes it is helpful in counselling employees with excessive innocent or culpable absenteeism to inquire or verify the nature and reasons of their absence.

The extent to which an employer may inquire into the nature of and reasons for an employee's absence from the workplace is a delicate issue. The concepts of an employee's privacy and an employer's need for information affecting the workplace often come into conflict. Seldom is the conflict more difficult to resolve than where personal medical information is involved.

Unions will often strongly object to any efforts by management to inquire more deeply into the nature of an employee's illness. You will need to consider the restraints of any language in collective agreements in relation to this issue.

Generally speaking, however, the following "rules of thumb" can be derived from the existing jurisprudence:

1. There is a prevailing right to privacy on the part of an employee unless the employer can demonstrate that its legitimate business interests necessitate some intrusion into the employee's personal affairs.
2. When such intrusion is justified it should be strictly limited to the degree of intrusion necessitated by the employer's interests.
3. An employee has a duty to notify his employer of an intended absence, the cause of the absence and its expected duration. This information is required by the employer to meet its legitimate concerns to have at its disposal facts which will enable it to schedule work and organize its operation.
4. An absent employee has an obligation to provide his employer with information regarding any change to his condition or circumstances relating to it which may affect the employer's needs as described in item #3 above. As such, the interests of the employer in having this information outweighs the individual employee's right to privacy.
5. An employer rule requiring proof for every absence is unreasonable if an absenteeism problem does not exist.
6. A mere assertion by the person claiming to be sick is not satisfactory proof.
7. The obligation to prove sickness, where the employer requires proof, rests with the employee.
8. An employer is entitled upon reasonable and probable grounds to refuse to accept a physician's certificate until it contains sufficient information to satisfy the employer's reservations. (i.e. seen by physician, some indication of return to work, etc.). Non-production of a required medical certificate could result in loss of pay until the certificate is produced.
9. Where a medical certificate is rejected by an employer (as in #8 above) the employer must state the grounds for rejection and must point out to the employee what it requires to satisfy the onus of proof.
10. An employer may require an employee to prove fitness for work where it has reasonable grounds to do so. In a health care setting the nature of the employer's business gives it a reasonably irresistible interest in this personal information for the purpose of assessing fitness.
11. Where any unusual circumstances raise reasonable suspicion that an employee might have committed an abuse of an income protection program an employer may require an employee to explain such circumstances. For example, an employer may require responses as to whether the illness confined an employee to his/her bed or home; whether an employee engaged in any outside activity and the reasons for the activity.

In summary then, any intrusion into the employee's privacy must be shown to be reasonable, based on the individual circumstances and in relation to the operation of the employer's business. If income protection abuse is suspected the extent to which such intrusion is "reasonable" would be far greater than in the case where it is not. If you are not clear on whether an inquiry is legally justified it is advisable to consult your superior.

Not only that but we need to know their mental capacity. They may not be fit for office and the voters NEED to know that just look at the situation of now former Congressman David Wu.

Not to qualify for FMLA it doesn't. You have to fill out a bunch of paperwork for both your employer and the Government and so does your doctor.

I've even had to bring notes in from my doctor's to my previous job to state the medication I was taking would not interfear with my job etc.

well, Im sure congressmen are aware of what THEIR proper procedure is. Im equally confident Jackson will follow whatever is the written policy on the matter.

The latest news report is that the congressman is being treated for a mood disorder.

mood disorder? mood disorder? We aint got no stinkin mood disorder, we don't need no stinkin mood disorder. We all got stinkin mood disorders.