CARRIER MAY HOLD EMPLOYEE OUT OF SERVICE MORE THAN 5 DAYS AFTER MEDICAL O.K. FOR DUTY (144)

Second Division Award No. 12670 (Fletcher)

"Claimant injured his back while on duty on April 24, 1987. He was on Medical Leave of Absence subsequent to that date, until he attempted to return to duty, effective June 14, 1990. Carrier had reservations concerning the 'Doctor's Release' Claimant submitted when he attempted to return, in view of the fact that he had lost three years work. Accordingly, it requested that he supply additional information, which was done. Further, on June 28, 1990, Claimant was seen by Carrier's Chief Medical Officer, who evaluated his condition and approved his return to work without restrictions.

The record contains a copy of the initial 'Doctor's Release' Claimant submitted on June 10, 1990, indicating that he 'may return to work 6/14/90.' This release did not contain any information concerning what Claimant was being treated for, what his diagnosis and prognosis was, whether he was taking any medication, and whether he had any work restrictions. All that the release indicated was that Claimant was released for duty on June 14, 1990.

In the circumstances present here, it was appropriate for Carrier to question the release and continue to disallow Claimant to work until he supplied adequate information on his condition, medication, if any, and restrictions, if any. Further, after supplying this necessary information, it was appropriate for Carrier to continue to withhold Claimant from service until after he had been seen by a Carrier Doctor, and until after its Chief Medical Officer had an opportunity to evaluate his situation.

There is no showing that Carrier delayed in having Claimant seen by its doctor. Further, there is no showing that inordinate delay occurred in the Chief Medical Officer's evaluation and approval for work. Finally, there is no showing that inordinate delay occurred in returning Claimant to duty after the Chief Medical Officer's approval was received. The Claim is without merit."

Fourth Division Award No. 4913 (Zusman)

"In this case, the Carrier acted on June 3, 1991 to obtain the results and on June 6, 1991 to advise that additional information was necessary. There is no dispute on the property over the Carrier's justification in requesting additional medical information to reach its decision. The Carrier stated that to determine if the Claimant was medically qualified, 'additional information was necessary.' This was not refuted on the property and stands as fact. This Board must conclude that the Claimant's medical records were insufficient to permit a safe return to work.

This Board finds no probative evidence about the nature of the additional medical information requested or the Carrier's need for the material in making its determination. Certainly the Carrier is permitted a reasonable length of time to reach a decision and five days was clearly insufficient as additional information was needed (Fourth Division Award 4561). Based on the record, the Carrier acted in a timely manner to initially review the Claimant's medical results and thereafter acted immediately upon receipt of the additional medical information to return the Claimant to work. The Organization has not met its burden of proof to demonstrate that Carrier's request for additional information was unreasonable or the delay unnecessary. Until the Carrier received its additional medical facts, it was not required to prematurely return the Claimant to work."