Online sick note without doctor contact: Termination without notice possible due to improper sick note

Hamm Regional Labour Court, judgment of 5 September 2025 – 14 SLa 145/25

If an employee submits a certificate of incapacity for work (“Arbeitsunfähigkeitsbescheinigung” – “AU”) issued online which, contrary to its outward appearance, was issued without any medical contact solely on the basis of a questionnaire, the employer may terminate the employment relationship without notice. The reason for this is that the Incapacity for Work Directive (“Arbeitsunfähigkeits-Richtlinie” – “AU-RL”) still stipulates that medical contact – although possible digitally or by telephone – must take place for a certificate of incapacity for work to be issued properly.

The Hamm Regional Labour Court ruled that deception regarding medical contact constitutes a serious breach of employment contract obligations that destroys trust.

Facts

The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant since 2018. He reported sick and unable to work for the period from August 19 to 23, 2024, and submitted a medical certificate for this period. He had purchased this certificate, an "AU certificate without doctor’s consultation," online on a website for a fee. The website clearly stated that a "sick note with doctor’s consultation" could also be purchased for a higher fee. The website offered a "money-back guarantee" for the "sick note with doctor’s consultation."

The certificate looked like the old "yellow certificate", contained the note "presumed unable to work based on remote examination using only a questionnaire", and listed a "private doctor" as the "doctor number". The signature field contained the addition "private doctor via telemedicine". No doctor’s office address was given.

There was no personal, digital, or telephone contact with a doctor. The certificate was issued after an online questionnaire was completed.

After the certificate was submitted to the defendant, the defendant confirmed its receipt in the system with the note "approved" and initially continued to pay wages. After the defendant's human resources department questioned the authenticity of the certificate, in particular because an electronic certificate of incapacity for work could not be retrieved from the health insurance company, the defendant assumed that fraud had been committed and terminated the employment relationship without notice, alternatively with notice. The plaintiff then argued that he had in fact been ill.

While the Dortmund Labour Court still considered the termination to be invalid, the Hamm Regional Labour Court upheld the defendant's appeal.

The decision

The Hamm Regional Labour Court confirmed the validity of the extraordinary termination without notice pursuant to Section 626 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB).

By submitting the certificate of incapacity for work purchased online, the plaintiff deliberately gave the false impression that a medical examination had taken place—either in person, by video, or by telephone. This constitutes a serious breach of the duty of consideration under the employment contract and constitutes "good cause" within the meaning of Section 626 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB). The relationship of trust between employer and employee was destroyed by the submission of the certificate, as the process of determining incapacity for work was an area in which the employer had no insight and therefore required special protection. A prior warning was not necessary due to the seriousness of the violation.

An aggravating factor for the plaintiff was that the online platform he used explicitly pointed out the lack of medical contact and advised him to purchase a more expensive certificate with medical contact, which was also offered, if the employer had been suspicious of certificates of incapacity for work in the past.

The website explicitly stated that the "AU without a doctor's consultation" should be submitted together with a request to the employer, such as "Here is my AU as a PDF. Is that OK?" If the employer did not accept the certificate, the purchased AU could be "cancelled" free of charge and it would be better to have the more expensive "AU with doctor’s consultation" issued retroactively for up to three days by online doctors with German licenses.

The fact that the plaintiff was actually ill or felt ill was irrelevant to the Hamm Regional Labour Court because he had not sufficiently fulfilled his burden of proof. The probative value of the online certificate was undermined because it was issued without a medical examination, contrary to the requirements of Section 4 (5) AU-RL.

Classification and consequences for practice

The decision is in line with recent case law, which applies strict standards to "certificates" issued without medical contact (e.g., Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labour Court, judgment of March 19, 2024 – 7 Sa 908/23). The courts link the probative value of a certificate of incapacity for work to compliance with the requirements of the AU-RL. According to the directive, a medical examination must be carried out. If the external appearance gives the impression of a proper certificate of incapacity for work, i.e., one that complies with the requirements of the AU-RL, in particular because the note "private doctor via telemedicine" suggests that medical contact – although digital – took place, even though this was not the case, this may constitute a serious breach of trust.

In practical terms, it is important to note that the assessment under termination law depends on the act of deception. Whether the employee was actually ill is of secondary importance.

The Hamm Regional Labour Court also clarifies that an internal receipt note ("approved") from the human resources department does not constitute a waiver of the right to terminate the employment relationship.

Practical advice for employers

The decision of the Hamm Regional Labour Court is good news for employers, although it should also raise awareness.

Employees now have many – often dubious – ways of obtaining certificates of incapacity for work. There are now a large number of platforms and websites, as well as specific doctors, about whom warnings are posted on the internet. "DEHOGA North Rhine-Westphalia" published a whole list of names of people who could be issuing certificates that may not be legitimate. A similar warning was also published by the Lower Saxony Medical Association (“Ärztekammer Niedersachsen”). The Handelsblatt newspaper reported as early as 2024 on questionable portals such as "DrAnsay.com" and "AU-schein.de."

However, employers need to design their internal processes in such a way that dubious sick notes are identified at an early stage and the facts are clarified immediately, appropriately, and documented. To this end, the department/person responsible for processing absences should be made particularly aware of any anomalies.

The following indicators may point to an improper certificate:

• the inability to retrieve an electronic certificate of incapacity for work for employees with statutory health insurance
• an explicit note in the submitted certificate of incapacity for work stating that the assessment was made solely "by means of a questionnaire," 
• the absence of registration data or addresses of the doctor who was supposedly consulted 
• the use of old sample forms (such as the so-called "yellow certificate" commonly known before the introduction of the electronic certificate of incapacity for work).

For a structured investigation,

• the certificate of incapacity for work should be retrieved from the health insurance company. This is likely to be negative in most cases. If the response is positive, the data transmitted should be compared with that in the submitted certificate. 
• The submitted certificate should be secured and, if the above indications are present, a further internal investigation should be initiated. 
• In doing so, the online platform used by the employee should be examined, if known. In particular, it should be checked whether it is one of the platforms that are expressly warned against. 
• If necessary, the accused employee should be confronted with the facts of the case in a staff meeting (hearing).  For this purpose, it is advisable to draft sample formulations that precisely capture the essence of the deception, which is not always easy to grasp – deliberately giving the impression of contact with a doctor.

Internal company guidelines can also be used to make it clear to employees that questionnaire-based certificates without contact with a doctor do not meet the requirements of the AU-RL and do not entitle the employee to continued payment of remuneration.

Conclusion

The decision of the Hamm Regional Labour Court will certainly not remain an isolated case. The possibility of obtaining certificates of incapacity for work easily and conveniently via online services is likely to be tempting for many employees. Human resources departments would therefore be well advised to take more time in the future to check certificates of incapacity for work submitted as PDFs or printouts. This will help to avoid unlawful continued payment of remuneration and, in some circumstances, even enable employment relationships to be terminated with immediate effect.