years of litigation and months of discovery, Matthys still presents no evidence to demonstrate that she was medically unable to work on account of her wrist injury. Matthys can point to no evidence that she experienced a period of incapacity on account of her wrist injury. Instead, the evidence demonstrates that Matthys was given work restrictions by three different medical providers but was, otherwise, physically able to complete her work. Such evidence does not establish that Matthys suffered from an FMLA-qualifying, serious health condition. See Ridings v. Riverside Med. Cntr., 537 F.3d 755, 770 (7th Cir.2008) (noting that a plaintiff can not establish entitlement to FMLA leave if she was fulfilling the requirements of her job despite her medical conditio 1022-23 (C.D.Ill.2008) (<HOLDING>); Mason, 2004 WL 3242339 at **5-7 (citing
holding that a plaintiffs failure to obtain evidence of continuing treatment an element of a serious health condition was fatal to a plaintiffs fmla interference claim regardless of the plaintiffs allegations that the defendant failed to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to cure medical certification deficiencies in so ruling the 7th circuit denied the plaintiffs estoppel arguments and instead placed an affirmative duty on the plaintiff to present sufficient evidence to establish a serious health condition as defined by the regulations in order to overcome a summary judgment motion on an fmla interference claim holding that a plaintiffs failure to submit evidence of continuing treatment by a health care provider as defined by the regulations was fatal to a plaintiffs fmla interference claim regardless of the defendants alleged failure to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to cure medical certification deficiencies holding that there was no sustainable fmla interference claim wherein a plaintiff could not establish that her daughter suffered from a serious health condition as defined by the regulations holding a plaintiff to be ineligible for fmla leave wherein the plaintiff had not accumulated enough work hours holding that an employers motives are irrelevant to a fmla interference claim