the doctor demonstrate that the plaintiffs progress did not ensure a speedy recovery. Over the course of a year, the plaintiffs doctor noted that she showed “intermittent mild improvement,” id., Ex. 34, and slow improvement, id., Ex. 36, yet she also suffered relapses and “even the simplest demands regarding her work situation cause[d] such distress that [the plaintiff] [was] unable to cognitively process the demands,” id., Exs. 36, 40. “Coming to work regularly” is an essential function of performing one’s duties. Carr, 23 F.3d at 529. As such, indefinite leave is “something an employer is not required to grant.” Sampson v. Citibank, F.S.B., 53 F.Supp.2d 13, 18 (D.D.C.1999), aff'd without opinion, 221 F.3d 196 (D.C.Cir.2000); see also Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Bramwell v. Blakey, 2006 WL 1442655, at *7
holding that the corroborating evidence need not be medical evidence if the appellant explains why medical evidence is not available holding that an employer is not financially responsible for medical and surgical treatment obtained by an employee for conditions unrelated to an accident arising out of and in the course of the employees employment holding that employer need not establish the exemption through public declaration holding that an employer need not wait indefinitely for  medical conditions to be corrected holding that after properly knocking and announcing officers need only wait fifteen to twenty seconds before entering