employee. 29 U.S.C. § 2613(d)(1). That third opinion is final and binding on both parties. 29 U.S.C. § 2613(d)(2). Here, Harnan’s doctor concluded that she needed leave and provided certification. St. Thomas responded by asking Harnan to see Dr. Bushara. Dr. Bushara concluded that Harnan did not need leave. These are conflicting opinions. The method of resolution is a third opinion. St. Thomas, however, chose not to request a third opinion. Because the third opinion is binding, the only logical reading of the statute is that the second opinion is not. Further, nothing about Harnan’s specific medical condition, severe headaches, prevent it from being a serious health condition as a matter of law. See Branham v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc., 619 F.3d 563, 570-71 (6th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, given the conflicting medical
holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that summary judgment was improper where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether prison officials prevented inmate from filing grievances holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether migraines anxiety depression and insomnia constituted a serious health condition holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff who was approaching a car to enter it as a passenger was occupying a motor vehicle holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim