Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: Agency Adverse Actions

Agency actions of an adverse nature seem to go hand-in-hand with filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS & CSRS.  If one pauses for a moment, one can easily understand the underlying reasons:  Medical conditions often result in attendance problems or impact the ability of a Federal or Postal employee to perform all of the essential elements of the position.  Disability Retirement eligibility is precisely that which attempts to prove the latter point — of the impact upon one’s ability to perform all of the essential elements of the positional requirements.  

Thus, when attendance, performance or conduct concerning the positional requirements become an issue, the Agency will often begin initiating adverse actions — ranging from instituting a “Performance Improvement Plan” (PIP), memorandums of warnings, suspensions, and removals.  While adverse actions reflect negatively by their definition, the positive aspect of such adverse actions, in combination with Federal Disability Retirement, is that the adverse action, having the underlying basis of resulting because of one’s medical condition and because of one’s medical inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job, can actually be used to argue for a FERS or CSRS Disability Retirement approval.  As with most of that which is “true” in life, the irony of this cannot be overlooked.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: Clarity over Question

While a compromise position on certain issues in Federal Disability Retirement for FERS & CSRS may be the best that one may hope for, obviously, clarity over question is the better course to have.  Thus, for instance, in a removal action, where a Federal or Postal employee is being removed for his or her “excessive absences,” it is best to have the proposed removal and the decision of removal to reference one or more medical conditions, or at least some acknowledgment by the Agency, that would explicate — implicitly or otherwise — that the underlying basis for the “excessive absences” were as a result of the medical condition.  There are cases which clearly state that where excessive absences are referenced by medical conditions, the Bruner Presumption would apply in a Federal Disability Retirement case. 

Now, in those cases where the removal action merely removes a Federal or Postal employee for “excessive absences”, there are other methods which may win over an Administrative Judge to apply the Bruner Presumption.  Such “other methods” may include emails or correspondence, at or near the time of the removal action, which appears to put the Agency on notice about specific medical conditions, including attachments of doctor’s reports, medical notations, etc.  Such concurrent documentation can convince an Administrative Judge that, indeed, the question as to whether the “excessive absences” were as a result of a medical condition, and whether the Agency was aware of such an underlying basis, is clarified by documents which provide a proper context within the reasonable time-frame of the issuance of the proposal to remove and the decision to remove.  It is always better, of course, to have clarity over a question, but sometimes the question can be clarified with additional and concurrent documentation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire