Claimant underwent a return to work physical March 9, 1992. :'he contract doctor deferred certification -o Carr:.er's Chief Medical Officer. That office on April 22, 1992, set four restrictions governing Claimant's return to service.

On April 29, 1992, the Division Engineer wrote Claimant advising that with the restrictions placed upon his resumption of services, it was not possible for him to return to work.

In a letter dated June 9, 1992, presented on June 12, 1992, to the Carrier Official authorized to receive claims and grievances in the first instance, a claim was filed in Claimant's behalf seeking compensation from April 13, 1992, until the matter was resolved.

On September 5 1992, the Organization appealed the claim contending that the first Carrier Officer failed to respond timely to the claim and the Organization was demanding payment under the time limit on claims Rule.

The first Appeal Officer declined the claim solely on the merits, ignoring the procedural argument entirely.

On final appeal, the Carrier Officer who responded stated that even though the claim was timely declined on August 3, 1992, the Organization's claim was void ab initio in that the date of occurrence was March 9, 1992, and the claim presented on June 9, 1992 (actually presented on June 12, 1992) was beyond the 60 day time limit set forth in the Time Limit on Claim's Rule. Under the circumstances Carrier's response and/or handling thereof was immaterial.

The Organization's response was that Claimant was not deprived of earnings until April 13, 1992, thus a claim for compensation lost on any date prior thereto was not possible.

A review of the original claim that was not responded to is the one that will be sustained, in full, if the procedural argument of the organization is upheld. If the Carrier's position is correct, the claim before the Board will be dismissed.

A review of the original Claim finds the Organization disagreeing with the Division Engineer's determination that with the limitations placed upon Claimant's resumption of duties that he was being denied an opportunity to return to work. There was nothing said about the contract doctor's decision to defer certification to the Carrier's Medical Department.

Furthermore, the Organization's post conference letter of June 4, 1993, begins by stating:

"*** The case =nvolves lost earnings on account the Carrier failed to permit Claimant to return to duty on March 9, 1992 for alleged medical reasons. ***11

:t is the opinion of this Board that the claim started to run in March 9, 1992. A c=aim for time lost should have been presented no later than May 8, :992. It was not. The claim before the Board is invalid.

AWARD