Third Division Award No. 29008 (Zamperini)

"In conclusion, the Board finds no basis to this claim. The Carrier acted properly in putting the Claimant on medical leave based on her physician's findings. During her medical leave, she did not communicate with the Carrier even though, according to her own statements, she had not experienced any symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis during her leave. It wasn't until they contacted her that she sent them any information. At that time she provided them with a statement from a doctor she had been seeing for only a short period. When the Carrier requested additional information, she did nothing until forced to do so through an Investigation. The Claimant must accept responsibility for any delay in her return to work."

Third Division Award No. 29035 (Zamperini)

"There is no question that the Carrier does have the right to establish the minimum medical standards for its employees. In the instant case, the medical report submitted by the Claimant in 1989 appeared to indicate that he still had discernible impairment in his lower back. As a result, the Carrier requested further explanation for the personal physician's diagnosis. The Claimant ignored the request, choosing instead to file a Claim. Absent marked improvement in his medical condition, the Claimant had a responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to the Carrier to demonstrate a distinction between the Claimant's condition eight years earlier when it was determined he was permanently disabled and his most recent physical examination, after which his personal physician reported he was capable of `any type of employment.' The Carrier was justified in asking the physician to explain his rationale in view of the fact the Claimant's medical condition had not seemed to change.

"On the other hand, if Claimant can submit medical verification that his condition has improved to the point he is able to return to work, the Carrier would be required to return Claimant to work or have Claimant examined by its own physician. If Carrier's physician disagreed with Claimant's physician, the next step would be the implementation of Article 45 in connection with the appointment of a neutral physician.

"With respect to Claimant's current attempt to return to work, Claimant shall have 45 days from the date of this Award to furnish Carrier with the medical verification discussed above."

Second Division Award No. 13070 (Newman)

"Claimant was a machinist at Carrier's Conway (Pa.) Diesel Terminal. In August, 1988, Claimant went on extended disability leave due to a nonoccupational back injury. In early June, 1991, Claimant was released to work by the doctor who treated him for a psychiatric disorder, as well as by a contract doctor who performed return to work physicals for the Carrier. When Claimant reported for work on June 20, 1991, he was informed that he was not medically qualified to return since neither his June 4 physical nor his own physician's release provided any information on the status of his back condition which had kept him off work for almost 3 years. Claimant was issued a letter from the Carrier's Director-Fitness for Duty requesting comprehensive medical information from the physician(s) who treated his back prior to being released to return to work.

"When Claimant failed to furnish the requested information, Carrier scheduled him for a physical examination on September 26, 1991. Claimant canceled the appointment. Carrier scheduled Claimant for a physical examination on October 2, 1991, and, again he canceled the appointment. The record reveals that the Carrier ordered the Claimant to appear for a physical examination on December 6, 1991 under threat of disciplinary action. As a result of such examination, a Form MD-40 was issued on December 18, 1991 showing the Claimant medically qualified to report for duty. He did not report to work until January 6, 1992, when he received three days of training and again marked off sick, which is the subject matter of a subsequent claim.

"The Organization contends that Claimant was unjustly held out of service for an unnecessary length of time after he had been medically released by a qualified facility utilized by the Carrier for return to work examinations. The claim seeks compensation for the June 20, 1991 to January 6, 1992 period. The Carrier argues that it was appropriate for it to ascertain the nature of Claimant's back condition before allowing him to return to active duty, and that any loss of earnings was due to Claimant's own failure to provide medical information and refusal to submit to scheduled medical examinations.

"This Board has held that the Carrier has the clear right and obligation to obtain full medical information concerning employees returning to duty from extended illness or injury. Second Division Award 12940.

"Despite the conclusion of the contract physician that the Claimant was fit to return to work on June 4, 1991, there is no evidence that he determined the condition of the Claimant's back or engaged in anything other than a cursory examination of the Claimant. We find nothing in the record to indicate that the determination of Carrier's chief medical examiner that the Claimant was to be kept out of service until he furnished sufficient information concerning the back condition which kept him off work for almost three years was arbitrary or unreasonable. This finding is buttressed by record evidence that the Claimant requested sick benefit forms from a claims clerk in June, 1991, explaining that he 'may have an accident or something.'

"The record also demonstrates that the delay in Claimant's return to work was caused, in large part, but his own failure to provide the requested information and submit to scheduled medical examinations. There is no showing that Carrier delayed in scheduling doctor's appointments once Claimant failed to furnished the requested information on his own, Second Division Award 12670, or that the delay in his returning to work between December 18, 1991 and January 6, 1992 was the fault of the Carrier. Under such circumstances, we find the claim without merit. This finding is based upon the actions of the parties between June, 1991 and January 6, 1992, and not upon the the fact that the Claimant subsequently marked off sick on January 10, 1992.

"Claim denied."