In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, many Federal and Postal employees operate under the misguided presumption that, if the Agency has acknowledged one’s medical conditions, cannot accommodate the Federal or Postal employee, and explicitly concedes that the disabled Federal or Postal employee cannot perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, that an approval of the Federal Disability Retirement application is nothing more than a mere formality beyond its submission.
Thus, for example, the scenario as painted herein might include the Flight Surgeon’s determination for the Air Traffic Control Specialist who works for the FAA, who disqualifies the ATS for either his/her medical condition, or the medication regimen that he/she is taking; or it may involved the Postal Worker who is sent home pursuant to the National Reassessment Process; or it may be a Federal or Postal worker who has been administratively separated from Federal Service based upon his or her medical inability to perform the essential functions of one’s job, and thereby is entitled to the Bruner Presumption.
All of these case-studies are “nice”; they are promising, and there is obviously substantive and useful evidence that the Federal or Postal employee is probably eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits — but what the Agency does or says is not enough. The Federal or Postal employee must still meet the burden of proof and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is eligible and entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.
The Office of Personnel Management is an independent agency, separate and apart from the other Federal Agencies or the Postal Service. What determinations are made by the other agencies will not persuade OPM of anything; in a Federal Disability Retirement case, you must prove your case of medical eligibility, above and beyond what the Agency says or does.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Burden of Proof, Eligibility Criteria | Tagged: air traffic controller disability retirement, applicant preponderance of evidence burden in federal employees, being eligible versus proving eligibility in opm disability retirement law and practice, Burden of Production, civil service disability, disability retirement benefits for air traffic controllers, disability retirement for air traffic controllers, eligibility fers disability, even easy medical cases must be proved for eligibility in the opm, expecting unrepresented claimants to bear the burden of presenting a compelling case, FAA Air Traffic Controllers, federal traffic controller and stress, FERS disability retirement, fers disability retirement and the burden of proof concept, meeting the burden of eligibility requirements for medical retirement under fers, OPM disability retirement, postal service disability retirement, proving eligibility on a federal disability retirement case, slam dunk case in federal disability retirement, statutory criteria for eligibility for disability, the Bruner Presumption and the burden of proof, the burden of proof concept in opm disability, USPS disability retirement, what do you need to prove to qualify for fers disability retirement, what's the burden of proof under fers disability retirement law? | Leave a comment »
