Whether it is one’s own agency which acts, or some third-party agency, the effect of such actions upon a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS is merely persuasive, and not determinative, from the viewpoint of the Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS.
Such actions may include: Disqualification based upon a medical condition, whether because of the primary, underlying medical condition, or a secondary condition resulting from a prescription medication; determination by the Agency based upon a fitness for duty review; failure to pass certain physical fitness standards; declarative statement by the Agency that no accommodations can be accorded, whether because of one’s medical condition or other influencing factors; a conclusion reached by an Occupational Nurse or doctor; acceptance of a case by OWCP, Department of Labor; approval by the Social Security Administration, the Veterans Administration, etc. — all of these “third party” determinations can be persuasive for a Federal Disability Retirement application, but are not necessarily determinative in coming to a conclusion of approval by the Office of Personnel Management.
Why “persuasive” as opposed to “determinative”? Because of two fundamental reasons: (1) The Office of Personnel Management is an independent agency, mandated by statute, regulation and case-laws, to make its own determination of eligibility of each Federal Disability Retirement application, separate and apart from any other agency, and (2) such agencies which make such determinations are not medical facilities (although a doctor or nurse may have some involvement in the decision-making process), and this is ultimately a “medical” disability retirement, and not an agency retirement system mandated by law.
As such, one must still prove by a preponderance of the evidence that one is eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, based upon the nexus between one’s medical conditions and one’s essential elements of the Federal or Postal job.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Agency’s and/or Supervisor’s Actions | Tagged: administrative actions against federal employee, adverse action while workers comp, adverse agency action, agencies do not determine who is eligible to retire for medical reasons, agency actions against federal employee, civil service disability, consequences of an agency's adverce action, CSRS disability retirement, disciplinary action for using too much unscheduled lwop, employing agencies do not approve federal disability retirement claim, federal disability law blog, federal disability retirement approval, FERS disability lawyer, FERS disability retirement, fers retirement social security, filing a very persuasive federal disability application, finding persuasive evidence to approve your fers disability application, nurse practitioners and federal disability retirement, OPM disability attorney, OPM disability retirement, opm's independence from other government agencies, owcp disability retirement, personnel termination action in federal employee, postal and social security disability, postal service actions against the postal worker, postal service disability retirement, preponderance of evidence concept in opm disability law, ssdi and fers disability, the limitations of employing federal agencies in fers disability laws, using owcp documentation, USPS disability retirement, who approved the application for medical retirement for postal employees? | Leave a comment »