Hammond Medical Clinic. The Claimant's attending physician filled out the Carrier's required Return to Work form containing a diagnosis of a "personal medical problem" and stated this problem was not caused by work. This form vas signed by both the

physician and the Claimant (see Carrier Brief,

A supervisor, Mr. Brewer, contacted the Claimant via phone to follow up with him after returning from the hospital. Mr. Brewer and asked specifically if the issue was in any may related to something which occurred on the job that needed to be reported (see Transcript, Page l0). The Claimant replied in the negative and submitted the Return to Work form stating the injury was not due to work on April 29, 2009. The Claimant was on medical leave from April 30, 2009 until December 7, 2009 when the Carrier's medical department approved his return to work. On February 15, 2010 the Carrier's Claims Department received a bill from the Brosnan Emergency Room for services provided on

At this point in the record, it is not clear what happened. The Carrier's version of events was that in a meeting with the Claims Department the Claimant stated he sought treatment on April 30, 2009 because h e did in fact have an on the job injury on April 29, 2009 (see Carrier grief, page 4). But the Claimant's testimony is at best unclear on what type of conversation he lead with the Carrier's Claims Department. The Claimant did testify that he could not recall telling anyone before the date of the meeting that he was injured on the job on April 29, 2009 (see Transcript, page 52).

As a result of these events, the Carrier charged the Claimant with making false and conflicting statements as mall as a violation of Rule N. Rule N states that employees who have an injury while at work must report it to a supervisor and till out an incident form before leaving the work site. A formal investigation ,vas held including a hearing. The Carrier concluded the Claimant was guilty, and dismissed him from service via letter on May 18, 2010.

The Carrier states bath the Claimant and his supervisor, Mr. Brewer, both testified that the Claimant stated on April 29, 2009 that his injuries were unrelated to work and continued saying that until the February 17, 2010 meeting with the Carrier's claim agent (see Carrier Brief, page 8). The Claimant's statements to the Carrier's claims agent specifically conflict with, among other evidence, the Work Status Form as filled out by the attending physician and signed by the Claimant on April 29, 2009 (see Carrier Brief; Exhibit A). Additionally, the Carrier's Medical Director determined via analysis of medical documentation vsubmitted by the Claimant that the diagnosed conditions and related pain were not related to work, The Claimant had a n opportunity to rebut this at the hearing, but declined to testify (citing confidentiality) about his April 30 visit to the Brosnan Emergency Room. Finally, the Carrier dismisses the Organization's many procedural arguments via stating that the language of the collective bargaining agreement w-as followed.

The Organization argues that the Carrier has a heightened burden of proof in the instant case which it failed to meet. It argues that the Claimant had to rely on the Carrier's doctor for a diagnosis and he had no way of knowing whether the pain he experienced ryas work related, and it was the Carrier's appointed doctor who gave a questionable diagnosis (see Organization Brief, page 9). The Organization further argues that the Claimant's own doctors were unable later on to concretely pinpoint the source of the Claimant's pain but were able to rule out the diagnosis offered by the Carrier's doctor (see Organization Brief, page 11). The Organization also states that (I) the Carrier's charges were not corroborated in the record, (2) the Claimant denies stating his pain was due to an on-duty injury and no evidence was offered to the contrary except hearsay, (3) neither the Carrier's medical staff nor the C'laimant's own doctors could conclusively identify the source of his pain so it cannot be conclusively linked to a work injury, and (4) the Claimant timely reported his medical issues to the Carrier (see Organization Brief, pages 12, 15, 16, 22-25).

The Board finds there is no dispute in the record that the Claimant did commit a violation of Rule N. On the day he left the work site to seek medical attention, lie did not state his pain was related to work and the Return to Work form confirms this. Concurrently, the Board recognizes that it may not always be possible to determine whether pain is connected to something which happened on the job on such an immediate basis. However, if the Claimant later determined that his diagnosis was related to a work injury on April 30 he had a responsibility to notify the Carrier. Instead, the issue alas not brought to the Carrier's attention until it received a bill from the hospital. In reviewing the record, we find that the Claimant's actions do not constitute grounds for dismissal. The Claimant shall be reinstated, but without back pay.

The claim is partially sustained.

- .r rf ;,t~ `.