Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: When and Whether

When one should file a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is a matter of individual circumstances and needs — except in the particular situation where objective timeframes impose mandatory filing.

Whether one should file or not is a similar question based upon the medical conditions one suffers from, as well as the extent of a doctor’s support for such an administrative filing — but again, the “whether” also may be mandated by necessity if a Federal or Postal Worker is approaching the 1-year mark of having been separated from Federal Service.

The general rule concerning an impending and upcoming Statute of Limitations is the following:  If the Federal or Postal Worker fails to file within 1 year of being separated from Federal Service, the ability to file will forever be blocked (with some narrow and exceptional circumstances excepting the passing of the 1-year deadline).  As such, it is better to file than not (obviously).

Further, on most issues, one can supplement a Federal Disability Retirement application later on (this is where the Federal or Postal applicant must be very careful in completing the SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability); whereas no such additional pursuance of the Federal Disability Retirement matter can be advanced if one does not file on a timely basis to begin with.

When and whether to file are therefore matters of discretion — unless the Statute of Limitations is about to impose itself upon the when and the where

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Conceptual Constraints

Within the world of biology, the distinction between an unicellular eukaryote and a prokaryote is one defined by the absence of a distinct, membrane-bound nucleus.  The latter is thus without a homunculus, constrained by a parameter and protected as the central seat of control.  One would assume that, because of this, the former would be easier to genetically manipulate, while the former would be more difficult.

Similarly, while widespread dissemination of responsibility and delegation of authority may have the positive effect of getting much work done, the corollary negative impact may also become uncontrollably representative of an organization:  loss of qualitative control.

Upon reading a denial letter from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, one may begin to suspect that you are dealing with a prokaryote-type of entity:  for anything may be said, and what may be stated may not even remotely be the law of the case.

Being unconstrained by a membrane may have its advantages for survival; being unconcerned by the constraints of language will have its definite impact upon a Federal or Postal employee attempting to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: confusion for the Federal or Postal Worker, or worse, surrender and retreat.  But there are ways to counter such an untethered approach — but one which must use all of the legal tools available to the Federal or Postal applicant.

The key is to build a membrane and change the prokaryote into an eukaryote.  In order to do this, however, one must know the law, apply the law, and force the law upon the organism — thereby effectuating the genetic modification.  Thus does science, logic and law coalesce into a unified, rational whole.  Go figure.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Expectation of Ethical Behavior

Ethics requires the containment and delineation of certain parameters of behavior.  The single intervening cause which provides for an exception to such constraints of behavior — as a practical matter — is the accumulation of power.  Power serves as an aphrodisiac which propels one to override any knowledge or sense of what it means to “behave properly”.

Just observe the behavior of those who are considered part of the “glamour” set — movie stars, politicians, wealthy entrepreneurs, etc.:  the common thread is that, because one acquires and retains money and fame (and therefore power), one need not be constrained within the parameters of ethics.  Just as individuals may act in certain ways, so agencies and conglomerations of individuals will act in a macro-reflection of how singular persons will act.

Thus, when a Federal or Postal employee begins the process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, wisdom should guide the Federal and Postal employee to expect his or her agency to act in ways contrary to ethical behavior — if not outright violating any rules of ethics, at a minimum, to act in a harassing and mean-spirited manner.

Power brings out the worst in individuals, and in agencies; and when the “weakling” shows his or her vulnerabilities, the claws and fangs manifest themselves in the most ferocious of manners.  Ethics is for the protection of weaklings, and for manipulation by the powerful.  That is why it is often a necessity to seek the counsel and guidance of an attorney to countermand the actions of those who deem themselves to be powerful — by leveling the playing field.  Now, as to the power of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management… that is a different story altogether.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Worker Disability Retirement: Double Standards

Double Standards have always been applied throughout history; it is the mark of a bureaucracy and administrative process to apply one set of standards (normally, the prevailing legal criteria) upon the population at large, but be satisfied with an application of a different (albeit normally a less onerous) set of standards (a “watered down version”?) upon itself.  

Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement application under either FERS or CSRS, there are multiple self-contradictions and conundrums which cannot ultimately be reconciled, but must be lived with, but perhaps pointed out to the Office of Personnel Management in one’s rebuttal arguments.  For instance, when a denial is received from the Office of Personnel Management, the set of legal standards applied in the denial letter will often require multiple criteria which fails to comply with the substance of the law.  Thus, for example, the insistence upon “objective” medical testing; higher standards of proof than the prevailing “preponderance of the evidence”, such as “compelling evidence”; a medical condition which keeps a person “out of the workplace”; and other such standards which are nowhere to be found in “the law“.  

In parallel fashion, the Office of Personnel Management will often rely (without directly stating so or quoting from their “expert” source) upon “contract doctors” to render an opinion.  The puzzling contradiction here, of course, is the fact that while the law favors “treating doctors” and the opinions of treating doctors, nevertheless, if a “contract doctor” who merely reviews the medical documentation renders a negative conclusion, then OPM will rely upon that negative conclusion as opposed to the treating doctor’s opinion.  

Such is the world of bureaucracies, the the beauty of double standards:  from OPM’s viewpoint, it is merely the ability to assert power and authority, as OPM is the “arbiter” of all Federal Disability Retirement applications for Federal and Postal employees, whether under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire