FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: Medical v. Legal

Issues concerning Federal Disability Retirement applications under FERS or CSRS, both for Federal and Postal employees, rarely “conflict” with the goal of obtaining the proper medical care for a medical condition which one suffers from.  First and foremost, one should seek to obtain the proper medical care, and undergo all of the appropriate treatment modalities necessary to take care of the medical condition. 

If that medical condition — despite treatment, intervention, medication regimens, etc. — fails to allow for recovery sufficient to return to a level of functionality such that the Federal or Postal Worker can continue to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job, then one should certainly consider preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS. 

Throughout the process, however, the primary focus should always be upon obtaining the proper medical care.  Logically, the Merit Systems Protection Board has held in various Federal Disability Retirement cases that where such treatment modalities as a medication regimen has been refused, then such refusal may be a basis for denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  Why would this be?  The reasoning is that there is an intervening cause for the continuation of the medical condition which prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job — not the medical condition, but rather the refusal to follow a prescribed course of medical treatment. 

Sometimes, however, failing to follow a prescribed medication regimen may not be an outright “refusal”, but rather a recognition on the part of the Federal or Postal employee that taking such medications while working will further impede one’s ability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.  This is where an intersection between the Medical and the Legal can “conflict”.  The best thing to do in such a circumstance, of course, is to consult with the treating doctor and explain the potential conflict.  There may be no resolution, but it is always best to have such attempts annotated so that it can be “proven” later on, if needed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Office Notes (Continued…)

The Office of Personnel Management has every right to establish a consistency of medical treatment and opinions rendered on the part of the doctor, the specialist, the medical facility, etc.  One of the reasons why Federal Disability Retirement benefits are (in great part) determined by the opinion of the “treating doctor”, as opposed to a determination made by a medical doctor who makes such disability determinations but is not the applicant’s “treating doctor”, is that such a determination (in the eyes of Federal Disability Retirement laws, statutes, MSPB case laws, etc.) can best be rendered by a medical specialist who has a long-standing relationship with the patient/applicant, over a long period of time, to determine the extent, severity, chronicity, etc., of the medical condition claimed.  

With this in mind, there often arises a conflict of sorts:  On the one hand, most people who are attending to their medical needs, are not thinking in terms of “getting Federal Disability Retirement benefits” during the time of treatment.  The critical point of when the line becomes drawn, where treatment & chronicity begin to conflict; or where, despite every attempt by the doctor to prescribe treatment modalities, there appears to be a medical condition which is “intractable”, is often a difficult one to determine.  In most cases, the office/treatment notes will reveal the line, which may come about gradually.  At other times, one may have a doctor who thinks that he or she can successfully treat any and all conditions, and reflects such a “positive” outlook in every office notation.  This is often not helpful, when it comes time to filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.  To counter this, a frank discussion with the doctor at some point may become necessary.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire