Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Precision & Wiggle Room

In every legal writing and oral argument, there is an appropriate time and context for precision, and times when wide discretion must be used in allowing for additional evidence and argument to remain effective.  Recognizing and identifying which approach must be applied is the first step to effective advocacy; maintaining the flexibility when appropriate, and constraining the precision for all sides, is often a key to winning.

For Federal Disability Retirement law, whether under FERS or CSRS, the key in applying the applicable case-law, the meaning of the ruling of the court or administrative issuance, while keeping open and flexible the statement of one’s disability, is an important part of the entire process.

To “paint oneself into a corner” in one’s Statement of Disability is often a problem, where subsequent medical conditions arise but one cannot supplement or support such conditions because one was inappropriately precise (or unduly succinct) in the descriptive narrative of one’s statement; or, conversely, being vague about the importance, relevance or applicability of a certain holding in a precedent-setting case; these are all mistakes which should be avoided.

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement case, submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the context often drives the content; where precision is called for, technical knowledge must be applied and the terms of art must be inserted; where linguistic flexibility is required, the artful weaving of wiggle room must be allowed, in order for the air to circulate, and for the chameleon of appearance to change as circumstances require.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Choosing the Medical Conditions

Often, in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, the question is asked as to which medical conditions should be included in a Federal Disability Retirement application.  The obvious answer, of course, is to identify the “most serious” of the medical conditions, with a secondary consideration being the ones which impact one’s ability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.

Whether to list “all of them” is a separate question, and then there are the subtleties which further delve into a more detailed analysis of the creation of an effective nexus between one’s medical conditions, the job description which one is supposed to be doing, and the provability of the medical conditions identified and described.

Inasmuch as a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS is a “paper presentation” to the Office of Personnel Management (and yes, the concept of a “paper presentation” still applies even if and when OPM converts entirely to the technological next-step of a paperless system; the Federal or Postal employee must still present a formatted application), the admixture of legal and medical issues will ultimately come about.

The conceptual distinction between the diagnosis and the symptomatologies; the extent of willingness of what a treating doctor will state; the concordance between the diagnosis, the symptoms described, and their impact upon the particular elements of one’s position description; the potential impact of being found “disabled” by the Office of Personnel Management based upon a “minor” medical condition which may resolve itself in the future, as opposed to a more serious-listed one; the nebulous areas of “syndromes” (as in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) and the description of symptoms and making sure to relate the symptoms to a particular medical condition — these are all “subtleties” which involve an intersection between the legal standard of proof and the medical “facts”, in formulating a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.  But that it were as easy as simply listing one’s medical conditions.  But, alas, OPM is a Federal bureaucracy, and the combination of “the law” and “a bureaucracy” can only lead to one result:  a conundrum.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: Shotgun v. Tailored Approach

In filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, there is the “shotgun approach” — of peppering the application with any and all medical conditions which may prevent or otherwise impact one’s ability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.  The danger of this approach, of course, is that the Office of Personnel Management can (and does) stop at the first medical condition which they deem disables the applicant from performing any of the essential elements of one’s job. If the basis of such a disability retirement approval is a secondary, or somewhat inconsequential medical condition, then there is the danger in the future that, if you receive a Medical Questionnaire requesting an update on your medical condition, that you may have recovered from such a secondary medical condition and deemed to have been fully recovered.  Now, every now and then, in the approval letter issued by the Office of Personnel Management, it will not specify which medical condition was the basis for the approval which was rendered.  However, this is in a minority of approval letters, and is not worthwhile enough to consider taking a chance on such a shotgun approach.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire