The problem with most people is that they come at a conversation with a selective focus — and listen for that which they want to hear, and filter all other information which fails to fit the paradigm of their predetermined perspective.
In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the question of accommodations via Standard Form 3112D comes to the fore — often because of the selective focus of issues on the part of OPM.
The fact that an agency may have engaged in work-place modifications, or allowed for temporary alleviation of certain elements of one’s job description; or even provided a state-of-the-art ergonomic chair with 3-speed controls with horizontal landing mechanisms — does not mean that the agency was able to, or did, accommodate the Federal or Postal employee under the legal meaning of that which constitutes a viable “accommodation” .
For, that which the agency does must allow for the Federal employee to perform the essential elements of his or her job, and any such attempted “accommodation” which does not meet that standard, is technically not an accommodation at all. It is merely an artifice and a cosmetic make-over in an effort by the agency which allows for the agency to declare that they have “accommodated” the individual Federal or Postal employee.
Rarely does the question on SF 3112D get accurately responded to; for, the concept of “attempted” accommodations is precisely the point — if it was attempted, and did not work, then the agency has an obligation to concede and describe that point; but from the Agency’s myopic perspective, any “attempt” constitutes an accommodation, and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will embrace such an assertion with open arms.
What to do about it? Always focus upon the central point of a Federal Disability Retirement application — it is a medical retirement. Thus, the doctor’s opinion is sacrosanct, and should be repetitively emphasized.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Accommodation and Light Duty | Tagged: accepting opm disability clients all across america, accommodation of federal employees, accommodation under ada not the same as under opm disability law, acomm, acronyms and abbreviations related to opm disability retirement, all about federal disability retirement news and trends, assessing the viability of your federal disability retirement claim, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, civil service eeoc and accommodation issues, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, essential elements of jobs, federal disability law blog, federal workmans comp limited duty capacity, future of limited duty us postal employees, injured light limited duty supervisor or 204b, issues that can arise during the disability process, issues to mention in fers disability application, lawyer federal retirement disability, legal accommodation for Postal workers, life after an accident while working for the federal government, light duty in the Postal Service, limited duty assignments united states postal service, limited jobs for light duty employees, opm disability and problems with the official job description, opm's excuses to deny your federal disability retirement, owcp accommodations, owcp disability retirement, postal service disability retirement, reasonable accommodation of federal workers, recuperating from an illness after working for the federal government, representing federal employees from any us government agency, the administrative process to get medical disability, understanding the legal definition of accommodation in federal disability retirement, usps accommodation, usps disability is supposed to be administrative non adversarial procedure, USPS disability retirement benefits, what to do when federal agency does not accommodate, when the "limited duty" postal worker cannot keep the pace, when the federal agency is unable to accommodate, working on a disability claim and getting your claim approved |
Leave a Reply