CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: The Muddle of a Myopic Focus

Focusing upon a singular aspect of an issue, and failing to comprehend its limited import and relevance within the greater context, is a pitfall which many fall into.  It is tantamount to having a myopic condition — where one’s nearsightedness prevents one from having the capacity to focus upon anything beyond those within one’s easy reach.

In a Federal Disability Retirement application, filed through one’s agency (if one is still a Federal or Postal employee, or if separated, such separation has not occurred more than 31 days) and ultimately forwarded to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (or, if separated from one’s agency for more than 31 days, directly to the Office of Personnel Management in Boyers, PA), whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to approach the preparation, formulation and filing of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application with a larger view than to discuss issues of limited relevance.

For example, when a Federal or Postal employee is embroiled in an adversarial and contentious process with one’s own agency, or a supervisor, it is often reflected in the Federal Disability Retirement application via a tirade of specific descriptions concerning harassment, workplace hostility, etc.  While such descriptions may be relevant for purposes of an  EEOC claim, it has very little significance for one’s Federal Disability Retirement claim.

Keep the essence of a case at the forefront:  Medical issues; impact upon one’s ability/inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.

All myopic conditions need correction; properly prescribed glasses to keep one’s focus may be a necessary expense.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: The Ties that Bind

Often, the Federal or Postal employee who is contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is involved in, or considering such involvement in, collateral or ancillary actions against the Agency or the U.S. Postal Service.

Litigation is a difficult road to travel; both in terms of emotional drain and financial commitment, a successful EEOC action or some form of lawsuit against a Federal Agency, can take a tremendous toll upon the Federal or Postal employee engaging in such parallel legal universe.  Further, when a medical condition is involved, the ability of the litigant to engage in the protracted, emotionally and physically draining garbage pit of depositions, discovery and endless demands of a Dickensian “Bleak House” endeavor, can detrimentally impact one’s health and ability to recover.  Justice has a high price; perhaps that is why it is rarely achieved.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the engagement of collateral legal avenues often reflects a complex history of an adversarial relationship between the Federal or Postal employee, and the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service.  Yet, such ancillary litigation is often anathema to obtaining Federal Disability Retirement and in many ways defeats the purpose.

As part of the review of the entirety of the process, it serves you well to consider the toll of such collateral litigation once the Federal or Postal employee files for, is waiting for, or receives a Federal Disability Retirement.  At what price, and to what end?  Or is it a tie which continues to bind, and merely squeezes the life that is left?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: Discretion

Discretion” is little used term and concept in the world we live in.  Instead, the focus is always upon one’s “right” to speak about anything, to expose everything, to assert one’s demands, etc.  But the conceptual applicability of the term should not be ignored in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS —  one must be “discrete” as to which issues to include in such an application.  

By “discretion” is not meant to imply any attempt to hide or obfuscate an issue; rather, because Federal Disability Retirement is an administrative process with its own inherent rules and laws, there is a containment of the types of issues which one should stick to.  For example, one should minimize and stay away, as much as possible, from such issues as “workplace harassment”, “hostile work environment“, “employee harassment”, etc.  Such issues might be relevant in an EEOC case, but potentially detrimental to a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.

There are Federal and Postal employees, however, who will insist that such issues “need to be brought up” in order to “expose” such injustice.  But everything has a proper time, place, and jurisdictional forum.  Discretion is always a relevant concept — but to recognize that discretion is a necessity in and of itself requires discretionary judgment; something that is sorely lacking in this day and age.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire