Upon the wholerecord, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-458 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
The facts in this Case indicate that Claimant was working on a tie gang on May 1, 1987. Claimant asserted that while working on his job and removing rail anchors from the rail on that date, an anchor ricocheted off the opposite rail and hit him in the groin area or his left leg. He testified that he reported this injury
to the Assistant Foreman (Student Foreman) within 15 or 20 minutes after it happened. This was later denied by the Assistant Foreman in question. It was also denied by the Foreman of the gang at the investigation subsequently.
The Claimant continued to work, but on May 18, 198, was admitted to the hospital with a blood clot in his groin area. At that time, when asked whether he had been injured on the job, he responded in the negative. Claimant returned to service on July 27 and July 28. Subsequently, he fell off the porch of his home and fractured his pelvis, and was placed on medical leave of absence beginning July 29, 1987.
Claimant remained off duty and, when his benefits were about to expire in February of 1988, an attorney filed a claim against Carrier for the effects of an alleged on-duty injury. Subsequently, in February of 1988, Claimant contacted the Roadmaster and stated that he needed money and offered to drop his claim against Carrier if he could be put back to work at that time. This was the first instance (in February of 1988) that Carrier had knowledge of any alleged on-duty injury.
Carrier did not return Claimant to duty at that time and filed charges against him indicating that he had.fraudulently sought to claim an on-duty injury and that he had not filed an injury report in a timely investigation held of the charges of