OPM Disability Retirement: Holidays and weekends

It is often a difficult time for many, if not impossible for most.  Holidays represent the heightened requirement of gaiety and relaxedness (is that even a word?), where people get together, families gather and children run while without knowing the underlying reason, if only to reinforce the belief that had already been in place from the previous year – that holidays and weekends are a stressful time.

There is the familiar refrain: “Oh, the weekend is coming up!”  To which the afterthought by the grump always reminds: “And Monday always follows.”  Similarly, with holidays, the anticipation is often better than the reality: “Oh, the joyous holidays!”  And yet…  For many, if not most, it is a time of greater stress, of needing to get together with obligatory family members, and especially with those whom one doesn’t even care for.  Exacerbating the situation is often an underlying medical condition.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, the vicious cycle may be the weekends that are used to merely recuperate in order to survive during the work week.  Thus, instead of enjoying, relaxing, “doing things”, tinkering, etc., the weekend becomes a haven and refuge to regain just enough strength or rest the aching body in order to get through the grueling week of work.  Similarly, holidays become merely an extension of a weekend, and a 3-day weekend is just a longer excuse to hide away and lick one’s wounds.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a psychiatric condition, including Major Depression, Anxiety, PTSD, panic attacks, agoraphobia, Bipolar Disorder, etc., holidays and weekends can further deepen the heightened reality of anxiety and depression, as the stress of the holidays themselves and the anticipation of what follows after a weekend can become magnified beyond comprehension and tolerance.

Consider preparing and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; for, if holidays and weekends have become a tumultuous time of overwhelming pain and despondency, and not the interlude to be enjoyed and become excited about, then it may be time to consider that the impact of the medical condition upon one’s ability and capacity to perform the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job is the underlying reason why the medical condition itself is worsening.

Holidays and weekends are not meant to be exclusively lived for; they are supposed to be mere intermissions where the rest of the week as well is looked forward to.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Psychiatric Conditions and Accommodations

In preparing, formulating and filing a successful Federal Disability Retirement application with the Office of Personnel Management, under FERS or CSRS, the issue of accommodations will come up.  The Agency from which one retires under a Medical Disability Retirement will have to ultimately fill out Standard Form 3112D —  Agency Certification of Reassignment and Accommodation Efforts — which will constitute and satisfy the Agency’s attempts at “accommodating” a Federal or Postal worker in his or her current position, taking into account his or her medical conditions. 

Unfortunately, most medical conditions are deemed to be “non-accommodatable” (if such a term exists in the English Language), and this is logically as well as legally true because with or without the accommodations, one must be able to perform all of the essential elements of one’s positional description.  Minor adjustments to the workplace, or even to the work assignments, may be able to allow for the Federal or Postal worker to continue to work in a Federal or Postal position for some time, but that Federal or Postal worker must be able to perform all of the essential elements of the job, as described in the position description.   An Agency may temporarily suspend certain elements of the core functions of the job, but such temporary suspension does not constitute an accommodation under the law. 

For psychiatric medical conditions, it is rare that an Agency will be able to accommodate such a medical condition, precisely because of the inherent nature of the medical condition — that which impacts upon one’s focus, attention, concentration, and ability to organize and perform executive functions in a coherent and systematic manner.  As such, the issue of accommodation, while one which may have to be addressed in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, is normally an irrelevant, non-issue.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Bipolar Disorder

Bipolar Disorder is classically characterized by extreme and unpredictable mood swings between depression and manic episodes, and such alternating swings of highs and lows impact upon one’s judgment, perception, orientation, and ability to maintain a rational perspective.  This psychiatric medical condition, with its symptoms of lethargy, racing thoughts, delusional thought processes leading to long periods of excitability, alternating with unrelenting and intractable depressive moods, impacts many different kinds of duties and daily living activities.  It can impact physically-intensive job duties, and not just cognitive-intensive core elements of one’s job. 

For Federal and Postal employees who are contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, it is important to understand the psychiatric medical condition; whether a medication regimen returns one to a sufficient level of functional sufficiency such that one can continue to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job; and, if not, then how best to prepare, formulate, construct and complete a Federal Disability Retirement application under either FERS or CSRS.  What is often known as OPM Disability Retirement is a benefit which must be fought for, in order to secure one’s future ability to receive an income — perhaps to reach that level of functionality that one may return to the labor force despite the medical condition.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Employees Disability Retirement: Major Depression

Federal and Postal workers who are inquiring about filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS often lack any context as to his or her own particular situation, in relation to the greater Federal and Postal workforce.  Let me elaborate:  a Federal or Postal employee who suffers from chronic and intractable Major Depression, despite being placed on various psychotropic medications, and having undergone psychotherapeutic intervention, and (in more serious cases) hospitalization for intensive treatment — often believe that his or her “situation” is unique, isolated, and rare.  It is not.  

When an individual suffers from Major Depression, it is common to feel isolated, as if the particular psychiatric disorder is unlike other medical conditions (e.g., physical medical conditions which can be ascertained by an MRI or other diagnostic tools).  This is part of the very medical condition itself — of feeling isolated and trapped, and unable to escape from one’s own plight.  

Indeed, Federal and Postal employees who suffer from Major Depression often ask me the “how many” question — how many people do you represent who suffer from Major Depression, as if numbers correlate to security.  While I am very protective of client confidentiality and information related to my clients, it can safely be said that a “great many” Federal and Postal employees suffer from Major Depression, that it is not uncommon, that your co-worker sitting beside you may suffer from it, and that such sufferers work hard to hide it.  

Further, the success in filing for, and obtaining, Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS is no less than any other medical condition.  Thus, for those who suffer from Major Depression and are contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS:  you are definitely not alone.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: The Difficulty of Accommodation

For Federal and Postal employees filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, the issue of accommodation must be addressed at some point, and one often wonders why a Federal agency is either unwilling or unable to accommodate the medical disabilities of a Federal or Postal employee.  

The line between “unwilling” and “unable” is often a complex one, because Agencies must contend with an obligation to attempt to accommodate the medical disability, but remember that such an attempt and obligation is merely one of “reasonable” accommodation.  This means that an implicit cost-benefits analysis is quickly engaged in, where the effort, likely success, extent of any workplace adjustments, whether in the end the essential and core elements of the job functions can be accomplished even with the reasonable accommodations, etc., can successfully be implemented.

An appearance of attempting to accommodate is often all that is indulged, and so the reality is that the Agency seems more unwilling than unable. Further, the simple fact is that, many medical conditions — e.g., those which are psychiatric in nature, are simply medical conditions which are termed “non-accommodatable“.  For, regardless of what workplace adjustments are made, a Federal or Postal worker suffering from Major Depression, anxiety, panic attacks, delusory thought processes, etc., where symptoms upon one’s focus, concentration, ability to have a reasoned perspective, etc., are all impacted, and therefore is inconsistent with any cognitive-intensive work.  As such, the medical condition becomes “inconsistent” with the particular duties of the job, and therefore it is an unreasonable and unattainable goal to consider any accommodations.  

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: Psychiatric v. Physical Disabilities

People continually inquire as to the difference between Psychiatric v. Physical disabilities, as to whether one is more amenable to an approval over the other.  Psychiatric conditions can include a wide range of variables — from Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Major Depression, Anxiety, panic attacks, Agoraphobia, ADD/ADHD, and multiple other diagnoses.  Physical medical conditions, also, include a wide spectrum of disorders — Cervical, Thoracic or Lumbar conditions; various cardiac conditions; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Fibromyalgia; Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Shoulder Impingement Syndrome; Plantar Fasciitis; Migraine headaches; Lupus; Chemical Sensitivity issues; allergies; COPD; and multiple other conditions.  Is there a difference between these (and the listed conditions are by no means meant to be exhaustive, but merely illustrative of the wide range of medical conditions)?  The answer is, ultimately, No. 

The foundational essence of a Federal Disability Retirement case, whether involving Psychiatric disabilities or Physical disabilities, is the impact upon one’s ability to continue to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job.  Further, recent case law holds that OPM cannot make a distinction between “objective” medical evidence as opposed to “subjective” medical evidence, and so the old distinction between “psychological” medical conditions as distinguished from “physical” medical conditions can no longer be seriously upheld.  Ultimately, and fortunately, there is no difference between psychiatric disabilities and physical disabilities when trying to get approved for a Federal Disability Retirement case under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: Situational Disability, Revisited

Remember that there is nothing wrong with issues and events in the workplace being the originating factor which instigates or otherwise propels a medical condition — often (though not necessarily always) a psychiatric condition.  The characterization of a “situational disability” (one of the basis upon which the Office of Personnel Management may attempt to deny a Federal Disability Retirement application) only becomes a problem if and when a psychiatric condition prevents a person from performing one or more of the essential elements of his or her job with a particular office, agency or department. 

If the Federal or Postal employee is unable to perform in a particular job in an office or agency, but is able to perform the same basic set of essential elements with another agency, or in the private sector, then it becomes a case of “situational disability”.  However, if the medical condition pervades other aspects of the Federal or Postal employee’s life — personal life; relationships with family & friends; impacts his or her ability to be employable in other sectors; then the medical condition is no longer one of “situational disability” — despite its origins having been formulated in the workplace.  Thus, the issue is not “where the condition came from”, but rather, “where is it now”?  The Office of Personnel Management will often attempt to blur the boundaries between the two questions, and try and characterize the medical disability as not only originating with an agency, but being limited to that particular agency.  And, indeed, the Federal or Postal employee who files a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS does not help matters when he or she wants to persist in focusing upon the events in the workplace which may have contributed to the medical condition.  Beware not to fall into OPM’s trap.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Spouse

I find that when a person is filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, an important component which is often overlooked is the supportive spouse.  I often get calls concerning various aspects of the Disability Retirement process — not from the applicant, but from the spouse.  And, indeed, this is natural, because often the medical condition itself is serious enough that the applicant is unable to “handle” or “deal with” the complexities of the process itself.  It becomes further complicated when the medical condition which is suffered is a psychiatric condition — severe Major Depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicidal ideations, etc.

However, whether it is psychiatric or physical, a supportive spouse — or “significant other” — is often very, very important to the success of the entire process.  Obviously, as an attorney who represents “the Client“, I must be careful that there is never a conflict between the Applicant (my client) and “the spouse”, but that is rare.  In almost all cases, I find that the spouse is looking after the best interest of my client, and I am happy to talk to and update the spouse on any and all issues surrounding a FERS Disability Retirement case, because I know that he/she is looking after the best interests of my client, just as I want to.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

OPM Disability Retirement: Accommodations

While I am often asked about the intersecting connection between the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and Disability Retirement laws under FERS & CSRS, and the issue of accommodations, my short answer is that the two areas of law rarely directly intersect. “Accommodation issues” under disability retirement law rarely present a problem in a practical sense. 

The term itself is rarely applied properly; the best way that I can describe what the term “accommodation” means, in its technical application, is by giving the classic example:  A secretary who suffers from a chronic back condition is unable to perform her secretarial duties because of the high level of distractability from her chronic pain.  The agency purchases an expensive, ergonomic chair, which relieves the chronic pain; she is able to perform the essential elements of her job.  She has thus been “accommodated”. Thus, the definition of “accommodation” is essentially where the Agency does X such that X allows for employee Y to continue to perform the essential elements of Y’s job.  Further, an accommodation cannot be a temporary or modified assignment; in fact, it is not an “assignment” at all — it is something which the Agency does for you such that you can continue to perform your job. 

Thus, as a practical matter, it is rare that an Agency will be able to accommodate an individual. Further, when it comes to psychiatric disabilities, it will be rarer still -especially when the essential elements of one’s job requires the cognitive capabilities which are precisely that which is impacted by the psychiatric medical conditions.  As such, the issue of accommodations is rarely a real issue, and further, people who are attempting to enforce the provisions of the ADA are not those who are truly seeking disability retirement, anyway.  It is the very opposite — they are trying to preserve their jobs, and to force the Agency to provide an “accommodation” under the law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Important Cases Which Impact Disability Retirement Applications

The recent case of Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, decided on November 26, 2007, cannot be overemphasized for its importance to the disability retirement process. It is, in my view, a landmark case which will greatly advance potential disability retirement applicants who base their disabilities upon psychiatric conditions. In representing my clients, I have repeatedly argued that the Office of Personnel Management’s insistence upon “objective medical evidence”, especially when it involves clients who suffer from psychiatric medical conditions (e.g., Major Depression, Anxiety, panic attacks, Bi-Polar Disorder, etc.) is not only unfair, but irrational. My past arguments were met with varying degrees of success, but the essential argument that I made over the years went something like this: Psychiatric disabilities by their inherent nature are “subjective”, because there is no diagnostic test which can objectively determine symptoms of psychiatric disabilities. Indeed, while there are multiple psychological tests which can be administered, the results are still based upon the subjective responses of the patient. Furthermore, a doctor’s clinical examination, long-term evaluation by a treating doctor, and the consistent assessment by one’s treating doctor, provide for the best and most ‘objective’ basis for a valid medical opinion. Further (my argument would often go), even physical disabilities (like a bulging disc) which can be ascertained by an MRI, cannot provide a conclusive basis to determine the extent of one’s pain or inability to perform certain tasks, for pain is by definition a “subjective” condition; there are, indeed, some who have bulging discs but have very little pain, and others who have a minimal bulging disc which completely debilitates the individual. These were rational arguments made, and while fairly persuasive when combined with case-law citations, the force of such arguments often depended upon the receptiveness of OPM’s representative or, at the Merit Systems Protection Board level, the receptiveness of the Administrative Judge.

With the opinion expressed by the Court in Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, we no longer need to rely upon the arbitrary receptiveness of an individual, for we have a firm legal basis to counter the irrational basis that OPM routinely gives in their denials based upon an objective/subjective distinction.

The Court in Vanieken-Ryals made several important declarations in their opinion:

1. That OPM can no longer make the argument that an Applicant’s disability retirement application contains “insufficient medical evidence” because of its lack of “objective medical evidence”, especially when the application is based upon psychiatric medical conditions. This, because there is no statute or regulation which “imposes such a requirement” that “objective” medical evidence is required to prove disability.

2. As long as the treating doctor of the disability retirement applicant utilizes “established diagnostic criteria” and applies modalities of treatment which are “consistent with ‘generally accepted professional standards'”, then the application is eligible for consideration.

3. It is “legal error for either agency (OPM or the MSPB) to reject submitted medical evidence as entitled to no probative weight at all solely because it lacks so-called ‘objective’ measures such as laboratory tests.”

Ultimately, for purposes of this article, which is (hopefully) read by many non-lawyers, the essence of the Vanieken-Ryals case is that it exponentially strengthens a disability retirement application based solely upon psychiatric medical disabilities. The case itself contains many other elements which provide for strong ammunition, when used wisely and with knowledge, for the disability retirement practitioner of law. It makes a strong and unequivocal statement that OPM’s and MSPB’s adherence to a rule which systematically demands for “objective” medical evidence and refuses to consider “subjective” medical evidence, is “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.” This is indeed strong language which can be used as a sword to prevail in a disability retirement case.

Persistence in the pursuit of a client’s right and entitlement to disability retirement benefits is never a lost cause, and those who have hesitated from filing for disability retirement because they suffer from purely psychiatric medical disabilities, or from disabilities which are often harder to “objectively” justify (e.g., Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, etc.) have a greater chance because of the bold legal opinion as expressed by the Court in Vanieken-Ryals.

This is a landmark case of incalculable importance and impact, which cannot be overemphasized. I have already cited the case on numerous occasions at the MSPB level, and the fact that it is a Court of Appeals decision makes it binding upon all MSPB judges. It gives greater hope for those who suffer from Psychiatric Disabilities alone, that their cases will not somehow be looked upon with less chance of approval than a person with a physical medical condition.

Other case updates: While Vanieken-Ryals was not a case that I represented, there are some case-updates from my own files which may be of some interest to my readers. All information provided is already in the public record of the written Opinion of the Judges, and there is no information revealed here that violates my attorney-client confidentiality. I wish that I could claim that I win all of my cases; I cannot. However, it is my firm belief that persistence in the pursuit of a client’s disability retirement application is never a lost cause, and here are three cases which reinforce my philosophy:

1. Tucker v. OPM (DA-844E-07-0314-I-1) The Office of Personnel Management kept denying Ms. Tucker’s disability retirement application. This case was finally won at the Hearing level. However, the Office of Personnel Management filed a Petition for Review. I responded with — among other arguments — the fact that the Office of Personnel Management failed to make any legal arguments showing that the Hearing Judge committed any legal errors. The Full Board rejected OPM’s Petition and affirmed the decision in my favor. No further appeals have been filed. I am happy for my client that after so many years, she will now get her disability retirement. Persistence in rebutting OPM’s attempt to reverse a Hearing Judge’s decision is never a lost cause.

2. Hartsock-Shaw v. OPM (PH-844E-06-0658-I-1) This one is the converse of the previous one, in that the Hearing Judge initially affirmed OPM’s denial of my client’s disability retirement application. I filed a Petition for Review, because I believed the Judge was wrong in not applying the Bruner Presumption in this case. The Full Board vacated the Initial Decision and Remanded the case back to the Hearing Judge, requiring further testimony on the issue of whether the Bruner Presumption should have been applied. We were able to factually prove that the circumstantial evidence necessitated the finding that my client was removed for her medical inability to perform her job, even though there was no final letter of removal issued by the Postal Service that we could find. The Judge sided with us, reversed her prior decision, and granted my client her disability retirement benefits. Persistence paid, and persistence in the pursuit of a disability retirement claim is never a lost cause.

3. Heiter v. OPM (AT-0831-07-0435-I-1) This is an interesting case. It has to do with a client who lost his disability retirement benefits because he tried to go to work for Federal Express. He was being punished for trying. One would think that a disability retirement annuitant would be commended and praised for trying — but, no, because he applied for, got the job with, and then quit, a job with Federal Express, he was deemed to have been ‘less than honest’ for having retired on disability from a Postal Job, and therefore OPM cut off his disability retirement benefits. We went to Hearing on the matter; the doctor testified unequivocally that he couldn’t do the job — neither the Federal Express one nor his prior Postal job — but he couldn’t fault his patient for having tried. OPM made a big deal about the fact that my client periodically went bowling. The Judge ruled in OPM’s favor. I filed a Petition for Full Review. The Board reversed the Initial Decision, and reinstated my client’s disability retirement annuity.

Here again, persistence pays, and persistence in pursuit of a disability claim is never a lost cause.

I am an attorney who specializes in representing Federal and Postal employees to obtain and retain disability retirement benefits. In pursuing one‘s entitlement to disability retirement benefits, one must always take the long-term perspective, and pursue that right with aggressiveness and persistence. It is an investment for one‘s future, and it is important to pursue your future investment aggressively, and to sustain your investment for a long time into the future.

For more information, contact me in one of these ways:

• View my website at www.FederalDisabilityLawyer.com
• Email me at federal.lawyer@yahoo.com
• Call me at 1-800-990-7932

 

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire