delegations of authority, like the one at issue here, ‘are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.’ ” Manuel v. Westlake Polymers Corp., 66 F.3d 758, 763 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. at 2782). Ms. Carter only missed two hours of work, and, although she was told by her doctor to remain at home for two days, she did not do so. In fact, plaintiff went to work straight from the hospital and worked the following'business day. As a matter of law, an illness that incapacitates an individual for only two hours, or even for the two-day period the doctor advised Ms. Carter to take off from work, is not covered by the FMLA. See, e.g., Seidle v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co., 871 F.Supp. 238 (E.D.Pa.1994) (<HOLDING>); Brannon v. OshKosh B’Gosh, Inc., 897 F.Supp.
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 note delivered by an employees mother which stated that the employee was having a lot of pain in her side and would not be able to work that day and the mothers statement that the employee was sick were insufficient as a matter of law to inform the employer that the employees request to take time off was for a serious health condition within the meaning of the fmla holding that employee who exceeded fmla leave was subject to immediate discharge on the very first workday that he was both absent from work and no longer protected by the fmla holding that proof of incapacitation for more than three days was required before plaintiff could qualify for fmla protection 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