This is not the first occasion for an employee and Organization to protest undue delay awaiting the results of a physical examination on return to work. Exemplary awards on the subject are: 

In Third Division Award No. 20674 (Lieberman) wrote for the majority. In that dispute, the employee advised Carrier of a return to work date of December 26, 1972. Medical decision was rendered January 5, 1973. The majority held this period to be excess by stating in part:

"... The period from December 26th to January 8th in our view was an excessive period of time to accomplish the medical review. It is therefore our considered conclusion that the Claim should be sustained to the extent of compensating Claimant for five days lost time."

Third Division Award No. 24146 (Sirefman)

"... The general thrust of awards is that five days after request is a reasonable time for holding such examination, in this case measured from the arrival of the report on June 28th. Thus Claimant should be compensated for all time lost from the sixth day after June 28th, 1979 through July 19th, 1979." (Emphasis ours)

Fourth Division Award No. 2948 (Weston)

"... Dr. Wren examined Claimant on August 9 and authorized his return to work August 17.

* * *

"... There is no evidence that an additional delay of two weeks and the attendant loss of pay were necessary under the circumstances and we will sustain the claim for the period from August 10 to 17, 1971. The record establishes no persuasive reason for not having Claimant's condition checked and reported by August 10 or for requiring Claimant to accept the full burden of the delay.

"In balancing the respective interests of the parties, it is important that Carrier move expeditiously in arranging medical appointments and processing when delay works to the economic disadvantage of the employe."

Fourth Division Award No. 4561 (Marx)

"Following absence owing to illness, Claimant reported for and was given a return-to-work physical examination on June 10, 1985. The examination was made by a doctor retained by the Carrier. His report was sent to the Carrier's Chief Medical officer for review and approval.

"Carrier's Chief Medical Officer did not indicate his approval until June 28, 1985, at which time the Claimant was permitted to return to work. (He commenced a pre-scheduled vacation immediately thereafter, but this is not pertinent to the dispute herein.)

"The record also shows that the Claimant's personal physician had provided a note approving Claimant's return to work as of June 14. This note was undated, and there is some uncertainty as to when it was received by the Carrier.

"The Organization argues that the Claim must be sustained because of the unreasonable time taken by the Carrier to approve the Claimant's return to work.

"In questions of reinstatement following illness, there are frequently circumstances which may require further medical review or which raise some doubt as to the employee's capability to meet the requirements of his position. Such, however, is not present here. The delay appears to have been caused by the transmission of the examination report from the examining physician to the office of the Chief Medical Officer. No further information was requested of the Claimant, nor were there qualifications placed on his return.

"The Carrier is, of course, entitled to a reasonable time to review medical evidence. Numerous awards have made a general determination that five days is sufficient for this purpose, absent the need for further examination or additional data. To this general effect are Fourth Division Award No. 2948; Second Division Award No. 11042; and Third Division Award Nos. 20674 and 24146. In the instance here under review, there is ample support for the view that the Claimant was unduly delayed in being permitted to return to work.

"Given the timing of the examination on June 10 and the arrangement of the Claimant's weekly working schedule, the Board finds that the Claimant is entitled to reimbursement for straight-pay he would have earned on his scheduled days commencing June 18, 1985 through June 27, 1985."

Second Division Award No. 12200 (Roukis)

Claimant responded to this notice and another notice (form) was sent via certified mail dated September 6, 1988. On September 22, 1988, Claimant was examined by his physician and cleared for work without restrictions. The physician's report, contained in the Return to Duty Status portion of the CS-5662 report was received by Carrier's Chief Medical Officer, on September 29, 1988. Apparently, since this was the first time Carrier's Chief Medical Officer was aware of Claimant's back condition and since Claimant's physician noted on his September 22, 1988 medical report that he saw Claimant for the first time vis-a-vis this condition on September 22, 1988, the Chief Medical Officer understandably requested additional information. To be sure, the uncompleted and unsigned form returned in the envelope postmarked October 6, 1988, on its face, would justify some concern, but the medical notes also contained in that envelope provided substantive information. More pointedly, in view of Claimant's back problem, which had historical roots, it was not further unreasonable for Carrier's Chief Medical Officer to require a Carrier-directed physical examination. The medical notes supplied by Claimant's physician which were based upon statements made by Claimant indicate a back condition history. However, since the Board believes that the return to duty carrier-directed physical examination could have been scheduled earlier than October 24, 1988, most likely by October 12, 1988, and since Claimant could have returned to duty within five calendar days of the physical examination, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he could have been returned to duty by October 17, 1988. Accordingly, we will direct that he be made whole at the straight time compensatory rate for the time he was unreasonably kept out of service, namely for the period October 17, 1988, through November 1, 1988. There is no justification to award interest. The Claimant returned to service on November 2, 1988."

Public Law Board No. 4093, Award No. 8 (Zusman)

"This Board agrees that the Carrier has a right to be certain that the Claimant is medically fit to return to his position. The Carrier's administrative procedures are not in dispute. However, such procedures must be balanced against the employees right to promptly return to work. Neither procedures, nor the right to require and review physical examination can justify the loss of an employee's earnings. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no evidence that the transmission of information to the Baltimore Chief Medical Officer and his decision should not have been completed in an appropriate period of time.

"What constitutes an appropriate time frame must be determined upon the conditions and circumstances of each particular case. Herein, we find no evidence that the Claimant's medical condition necessitated any serious concern or delay. It is this Boards determination that Carrier delayed action in this case beyond acceptable limits. Previous Awards have held that a delay of five days is appropriate. As such, the determination should have been completed within five days after the Claimant reported for duty on September 27, or by October 2, 1983. There is no evidence presented by the Carrier on the property that would allow this Board to consider any of these days as reasonable exceptions. We will therefore allow compensation for Claimant for October 3, and October 4, 1983, as such time must be considered as unreasonable delay."

Second Division Award No. 12472 (Fletcher)

"The basic issue involved in this Docket has been before this and other Divisions of the Board many times. The Claim of the Organization involves an allegation of inordinate delay in returning an employee to duty following a medical release by his treating physician. Review of our Awards in similar cases discloses that the Board subscribes to the notion that undue delay on the part of the carrier in review of medical documentation, scheduling of necessary tests and/or examination by its medical staff, warrant compensation for the time the employee lost as a result of delays attributable to carrier inaction. Our Awards, though, have not established a standard on an appropriate time element for measurement of these delays. Instead the particular facts associated with each individual case have been reviewed and generalized tests of reasonableness have been applied to the facts developed.

"In applying this reasonableness standard, the Board has recognized that both the employee and the Carrier share an obligation to expedite receipt and release of necessary medical documentation and information. The Board has also recognized that special cases require longer periods for review than more ordinary cases. Carriers have a basic obligation to insure that any return of an employee who had been absent because of illness or injury satisfied its medical standard. Importantly, though, in cases where the returning employee has satisfied accepted medical standards, the Board has concluded that delays in effecting a return to duty, within the control of a Carrier, are the responsibility of the Carrier.

"Applying these considerations to this case the Board notes that Claimant presented Carrier with a return-to-work authorization on December 12, 1988. He was examined at Carrier's designated medical facility on December 15, 1988. The medical facility faxed the results of this examination to Carrier. However, the fax transmission was nearly illegible and, for unexplained reasons, did not contain drug screen results. Because of these `defects' Carrier scheduled a re-examination on December 19, 1988. The results of the second examination were placed in the mail and were not received by Carrier until December 27, and 29, 1988. On January 16, 1989, Claimant was returned to duty.

"These facts demonstrate that all delays associated with Claimant's return to duty were within the control of, and basically the responsibility of, Carrier. For example, the receipt of an illegible fax could have been corrected by the prompt transmission of a legible report, rather than starting the entire procedure over, the election Carrier utilized here. Additionally, the conclusions of the second examination could have been dispatched in a more expeditious manner which would not have taken 8 and 10 days, especially since it was a re-examination resulting from a faulty fax transmission. Accordingly, in the circumstances here, the Board concludes that Claimant should have been returned to duty within five working days of the date Carrier received initial notice (even though it was illegible because of fax transmission problems) on December 15, 1988, of the results of his examination. He is entitled to be paid for all time lost between the day he should have been returned to duty and the date he was returned to duty."

Third Division Award No. 31470 (Richter)

"Accordingly, the Board finds the Carrier was dilatory in processing the Claimant's return to work. However, the Carrier is entitled to sufficient time to reasonably evaluate the information. The Awards cited by the Organization giving the Carrier five business days seem reasonable. Therefore, the Carrier had until September 21 to rule on the medical evidence. As a result the Board will award the Claimant pay for time lost beginning Tuesday, September 22, 1993. Claimant could have returned to work on September 29, but chose to wait until October 4 to return to work. Therefore, the Carrier's liability ceases on September 29, 1993."