had previously discussed potential applicability of estoppel to an FMLA claim, the Circuit had never actually applied it to any particular case). See also Peters v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 533 F.3d 594, 599-600 (7th Cir.2008) (Seventh Circuit reversed a lower court decision that had found equitable estoppel to be applicable to negate an FMLA eligibility defense, concluding that it was not necessary for the lower court to apply equitable estoppel wherein a state law promissory estoppel or contract claim might have otherwise been applicable). In addition, there is at least one case, post -Dormeyer, in which the Seventh Circuit has found equitable estoppel to be not applicable, wherein an employee plaintiff could not factually establish entitlement to FMLA leave. See Darst, 512 F.3d at 910-12 (<HOLDING>). Further, the Court notes that in nearly every
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 when the plaintiffs child was examined only once by a physician and was not required to be absent from day care for more than three days he had no serious medical condition within the meaning of the fmla 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 an employers motives are irrelevant to a fmla interference claim 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