SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

and


BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,

FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES






( now be required to compensate Ms. F. B. Lewis for
-- Clerk, $80.28 per day.



I CARRIER'S EXHIBIT"F"

to Carrier's Chief Medical Officer, Dr. White (who examined Claimant at the request of Dr. Redfield) concluded that Claimant "has diagnoses which impair her ability to work, i.e., allergic diathesis with atopy and hypocondriacal neurosis." Dr. White further stated, "1 believe these two diagnoses work syngeristically and create a significant problem for [Claimant]." Dr. McConochie's report concluded that Claimant's "test and interview responses are strongly suggestive of functional (emotional) problems manifesting themselves as somatic complaints and preoccupations. Her openness to psycotherapy seems poor at this time, land thus prognosis for overcoming the unproductive psychological processes is poor."


After receiving the reports on December 29, 1980, Carrier's Chief Medical Officer wrote the Regional Engineer on DecFrnber 31, 1980, advising him that he felt Cloimont ai,ould "resolve her mediccl problems prior to her returning to work." Carrier's Chief Medical Officer also v3gccjested that Claimant be advised to take advantage of the suggestions given her by Dr. McConochie, i.e., undergo psycotherapy.


On January 5, 1981, the Regional Engineer advised Grievant that she was removed from service until such time as her medical problems were resolved, and further suggested that she take advantog:, of the recommendations given her by Dr. McConothi~..


By letter dated January 29, 1981, Ca,rier's Chiet Medical Officer wrote Claimant as follows:


        I h(-ve been in recent contact Htth Or. McConochie and following his evaluation, we both agree that it would be in your best interest to receive so,'ne psychological assts-

                                            Awp a~ - (952 -


                        -S-


        tance at this time. It is your decision as to which therapist you choose to discuss your problems; however, at this time if you were to begin working with Dr. McConochie, 1 will pay for your first two visits. At that time If you and the Doctor decide to continue therapy, these bills will be sent to Travelers Insurance Company. I am sending a 'copy of this letter to Dr. White and McCorrchie and if you have any suggestions, please contact me.


        I have not made an appointment for you to see Dr. McConochie as I am leaving this up to you. I encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity,


    By ;etter dated February 2, 1981, Claimant responded as follows:


        Rcference Mr. Forbis's letter of January 5, 1981, received on 1/6/81 and Dr. Meyers' letter of Janaury 20, 1981, received January 30, 1981, concerning my being held out of service account 'alleged medical reasons.'


        Neither letter states what these alleged medical reasons are, and both letters quote suggestions referred to by Dr. McCunochie, who is not a me:jical doctor and therefore, is not qualified to render a medical opinion.


        Tills is official notice that I wish to invoke Rule 62B of the Agreement between Southern Pacific Tionsportation Company and B of RAC. Please let me know the name:; of the 'allergy specialist-medical doctor' that the Compan- decides to appoint. My personal physician is Dr. Car,d!ce Rohr, who is an allergy specialist in Eugene.


        Also, Dr. Meyers' letter to me does not say onythiny about not being allowed to work.


    Anu:'-,er appointment was mane for Claimant to see fit. Vvhite fogy


reevrjlu<,1'3n on rebnjory 10, 1981. Aftcr Claimant we- re-examimrl, Di. 2l;:ite

 wrote t:: Carrier's Chief Medical Ofticer on February 13, 196'., state: ~;; in

 pertinert part;

        My impression of [Claimant] is unchanged. I believe she has cii allergic diathesis with otopy and hypocondriaral neurosis. She is also S/P hysterectomy and S/P thyroidectrnny and has exogenous obesity.

        At this time I believe [Claimant] is capable of working. She has a severe allergic problem which she accepts and an emotional problem which she denies. She is functional at this time but I suspect that she will continue to have allergic reactions, accentuated by her neurosis that will continue her need for sick leave and medical care.


As a result of Dr. Whit's report, the Regional Engineef's office was ratified, and Claimant was returned to work on February 17, 1981. It is noted that Claimant's first "sick day" following her return :o duty on February 17 was rout until March 31.


    Rule 62(a) reads, in pertinent part:


        A regularly assigned employee, including an employee assigned to the Guaranteed Extra Board, who is ordered, in writing by an Officer Company to report for physical

        examination and found to be in a satisfactory physical f., -

        condition that would have enabled him to continue in

        service without interruption shall be compensated as 'y

        follows . . ."


Af!sr reviewing the record, tire Board is satisfieri that the claim MUST be 'ani~d. It is clear that, during the periods involved, r=Ic.irrant was not physically jr emotionally able to have continued in service wit>~,ut interruption. This coni_Iosion is based an the reports of Dr. White and f)r. McConochie. It is not relevant under the circumstances that Dr. McConochie was not a medical doctor; '~is <_!irlclusions were corrobo:ated by Dr. White, a rned;_al doctor.


Under the circ·imstances, Carrier was not arbi trrry or unreasonable in withholding Claimant from service. It had a right to rely on the reports of the ener'ir-.ol doctor and psychologist who examined Cl,Timant.

                                    .~(NO 3(9 -(L75~-


A ,AIAiliJ:

    Claim denied.


' Neutral Me fhber

 c117/>s
 arrier Member

 note ../~®'G,~6 Z, lY83