Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.12484
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12112
 92-2-90-2-234
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company (CSX
 Transportation, Inc.) (hereinafter "Carrier") violated the provisions
 of Rules 18-1/2, 37 and 38 of the Shop Crafts Agreement between Transporta
 tion Communications International Union - Carmen's Division and the
 Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company (CSX Transportation, Inc.) (revised
 June 1, 1969) and the service ;rights of Cayman C. B. Shipe (hereinafter
 "claimant") when the carrier removed and excessively withheld the claimant
 from service.

 2. That, accordingly, the claimant is entitled to be compensated for eight (8) hours each work day from May 7, 1987 to Julv I:. 1987.

 FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole .record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction wry the dispute involved herein.

 Parties to said, dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 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 swards 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 compensatton for the time the employee loss: as as a result of delays arributable 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.
 Form 1 Award No. 12484
 Page 2 Docket No. 12112
 92-2-90-2-234

 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 standards. 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 suffered a history of back problems, including prior back surgery. On May 6, 1987, he approached his General Foreman complaining of back pain. He was directed to have a special examination by a Carrier Medical Examiner that day, which necessitated a follow-up examination by an orthopedic specialist. The orthopedic examination could not be scheduled until June 2, 1987. The results of this examination were received by Carrier on June 17, 1987, and on July 7, 1987, Claimant was approved to return to duty.- Since he was on vacation at that time, he returned to service on July ly, 1987.

 In the circumstances present it was not inappropriate for Carrier to withhold Claimant from duty until it was established that his b,~rR condition was within Carrier's medical standards. Accordingly, Clai-.m t is not entitled to compensation for any time lost between the date was held out of service for medical reasons and the date Carrier w.w advised of the results of the examination of the orthopedic speciali.t. Upon receipt of the results of this examination Carrier was obligated to act promptly. Ten work days should have been more than sufficient to act upon the matter. Accordingly, Claimant is entitled to payment for time lost beyond ten work days from the date Carrier received the report of the orthopedic specialist, i.e., commencing Thursday, Juiv 2, 1987.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:
 ant J. D -Executive Secretary - -

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of November 1992. ~_rr'"