A backdated certificate and one email unraveled an employee's case
A Fair Work Commissioner has raised red flags about online medical certificates, questioning whether they can be trusted in workplace disputes.
In a decision handed down February 4, 2026, Commissioner Riordan dismissed a general protections application from Lexie Buenfeld after she missed the filing deadline by one day. Her excuse? A backdated medical certificate obtained through an online service without ever speaking to a doctor.
The case has implications that extend far beyond one missed deadline. It signals a potential shift in how medical evidence is evaluated in workplace matters at a time when telehealth services have become ubiquitous.
Buenfeld was terminated from Metal Manufactures Pty Limited on October 13, 2025. Under the Fair Work Act, she had 21 days to file her application with the Commission. She lodged it on November 4, 2025, one day late, arguing that medical incapacity prevented her from meeting the deadline.
She provided two medical certificates to support her claim. The first, issued by Berrimah Family Practice on October 3, 2025, covered the period from October 3 to October 31, 2025. When that period ended, she obtained a second certificate dated November 4, 2025, covering November 2 to November 3, 2025.
That second certificate became the focus of Commissioner Riordan's concerns. It was obtained through an online medical certificate service, backdated, and issued without any live consultation with the medical practitioner who signed it.
The Commissioner did not hold back. "Based on the ease of any member of the public now being able to obtain a medical certificate, without even speaking to a medical practitioner, raises significant questions about the evidentiary value of such certificates," the decision stated. "Such a system leaves itself open to abuse."
But the case turned on another detail entirely. On November 3, 2025, the final day of the filing deadline, Buenfeld sent an email to the company's HR team. She requested corrections to her time records and asked for a copy of her final payslip.
That email became the evidence that undermined her entire argument.
"If the Applicant was able to correspond with the Respondent on that date via email, then I consider that she was able to make a brief online application on that date," Commissioner Riordan wrote.
The decision established what the Commissioner called a functional capacity test. The question was not whether Buenfeld was fit for work during the 21-day period. Instead, it was "whether the Applicant had functional capacity to send an email, fill out a form or talk on the telephone."
Since she had sent that email on the deadline day, the Commissioner found she was capable of submitting her application electronically within the required timeframe. The application was dismissed.
For HR professionals, this case raises questions about how medical certificates should be evaluated, particularly those obtained through online services. The decision suggests that such certificates, especially when backdated or obtained without genuine consultation, may face increased scrutiny in workplace disputes.
The case also serves as a reminder that employee communications can become evidence. While maintaining open communication during disputes is important, those same exchanges may later be used to assess claims of incapacity.
The timing is significant. Online medical services exploded during the pandemic and have remained popular. Commissioner Riordan's skepticism about their evidentiary value comes just as these services have become part of everyday workplace management, from sick leave to performance issues.
