Medical Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: The Treating Doctor

In a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS & CSRS, what distinguishes the entire process of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a Federal or Postal employee is unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job — from other processes, such as Social Security and OWCP — is that the evidentiary weight is placed upon a treating doctor.  There are “other” types of doctors other than treating doctors:  specialists who are referred to for consultative purposes; doctors who specialize in determining functional capacity & evaluate the functional limits of an individual; occupational specialists, etc.  Why a “treating” doctor?  Because we are talking about workers who, over time, find that he or she is no longer able to perform the essential elements of a job and, over that same time, it makes sense that a doctor would be treating that individual.  Disability Retirement is not normally filed as a result of a traumatic accident (although that can happen, also); rather, a Federal or Postal employee normally files a Federal Disability Retirement application because of a condition which develops over time.  That is why the “treating” doctor would be the best source of knowledge and information:  because, through clinical examinations, long-term doctor-patient relationship, the treating doctor can make a long-term assessment based upon all of the facts and circumstances of the patient.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: OPM’s Arsenal

The names have been changed to protect the innocent.  Or, perhaps those who are impliedly involved herein are not so innocent after all.  Nevertheless, the names must be changed to protect confidentiality of sources, etc.  Every now and then, the Office of Personnel Management discloses their arsenal of weapons.  For instance, such an arsenal might be that a denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application was based upon a review by a retired contract doctor.  Now, let us analyze such an arsenal.  First, the term “retired” reveals an interesting concept.  It means that the individual no longer sees hundreds of patients on a daily basis, nor is actively practicing medicine.  Next, on a superficial level, we take the word “contract” — meaning thereby that the individual is paid to review the paper submissions — not to examine the applicant who is filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  And, finally, the concept of a “doctor” — let us be certain as to the two preceding words, “retired” and “contract”, and that is the extent which one needs to understand in accepting the definition of the word “doctor”.  As opposed to:  the treating doctor of an applicant for Federal Disability Retirement.  Who would you choose to treat you?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: Use of Medical Reports

People often ask me whether or not a certain type of medical report should or should not be used.  As with almost all such questions, the answer is, “It depends”.  On what?  On the content; in the manner it is written; and by whom.

This latter basis is often a determinative one.  For instance, should a medical report from a Chiropractor be used in an CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement case?  Let me answer this question in a circuitous manner — I handled an MSPB case years ago where I had no “medical” doctors testify, but I had two chiropractors testify (I needed both of them, not because two makes better than one, but merely because they treated my client in sequence over the relevant period of time).  To the great consternation of the OPM representative, we won the case.

Thus, chiropractors can provide valid medical opinions, and the MSPB has accepted the testimony of chiropractors — as well as therapists — standing alone, without the primary support of a medical doctor.  However, my customary approach in the utilization of therapists and chiropractors, as well as physicians’ assistants, nurses, etc., is that they are most effective as secondary support to a primary medical narrative from a medical doctor.

This will often present an interesting conundrum in that, often, chiropractors and therapists will write the more detailed, substantive, and interesting report than the medical doctor.  That is okay.  To use such reports as a piggy-back upon the short, concise and straightforward medical report is often the best way to use such valuable resources.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Doctor II

Work is good for a person — being productive, being useful, being a contributing member of a team, an agency, an organization; it provides a sense of self-worth, dignity, and therapy. On the one side, that is why a Federal or Postal worker takes such a long, careful and hesitant step before deciding to file for Federal Disability Retirement. On the other side, the treating doctor knows the medical, therapeutic and healing value of work.

That is often why doctors are reluctant to agree to support a Federal or Postal worker’s decision to file for disability retirement under FERS & CSRS. Such reluctance, however, is mostly due to an unfamiliarity with the legal standards required to obtain disability retirement. Most doctors are familiar with the Social Security process of filing for disability benefits; and, further, many doctors are familiar with State Worker’s Compensation benefits and process; and, to a lesser extent, Federal Worker’s Compensation programs. Very few doctors are familiar with Federal Disability retirement benefits under FERS & CSRS. That is why it is important to clearly, concisely, and thoroughly inform the treating doctor of the process — and, often, it is wise to have an attorney who can clearly explain and delineate the process.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The Proper Paradigm

Whether we like to admit it or not, we all operate, in all segments of our lives, from a certain “paradigm” (reference Thomas Kuhn, Structures of Scientific Revolutions) or “world-view”. When it comes to Federal Disability Retirements, the majority of Federal and Postal workers who comes to me have a pre-formed, generally negative attitude about the chances of getting it. This is because they have heard too many horror stories; or they have had horrendous experiences with OWCP filings, or EEOC complaints, or other experiences which they then relate to how the disability retirement process must be.

Yet, all Federal and Postal employees must understand that the process of Federal Disability Retirement has many, many inherent advantages which make it different from other processes. For instance, the Merit System Protection Board has often observed, with respect to disability retirement, that it is distinguishable from other processes, because it is not — strictly speaking — an adversarial process between an agency and an employee; rather, the MSPB sees it simply as a single issue — that of an employee’s entitlement to disability retirement.

Further, the role of the Office of Personnel Management, while seemingly one of making things overly difficult for the individual, in reality has a very difficult time in ultimately justifying a denial. Why? Because they do not have a right to have a doctor of their own to examine the applicant/patient (note the difference with OWCP, where you can be sent to second, third, and sometimes fourth medical opinions by doctors chosen by DOL and paid by DOL). Thus, it is almost as if OPM must disprove a case filed by an applicant. Finally, it is difficult to attack a treating doctor of an applicant, unless there is something seriously wrong with the credentials or competence of the treating doctor. All in all, disability retirement for Federal and Postal Workers is a fair process — one which is a valuable benefit for the Federal and Postal Employee.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire