The Balance of Relevance during the Preparation and Filing of an OPM Disability Retirement Application

Extraneous information is somewhat determined by the eye of the beholder; outsiders tend to view things differently from those who hold greater and more intimate knowledge through interconnected and intersecting relationships; and implied understandings, furtive glances and knowing stares, coupled with a wan smile, are often indicative of an intramural web of knowledge.

Looking to move into a neighborhood, one may drive through an area and see the pristine cut of well-manicured lawns, but it says nothing about the inner workings of friendliness or neighborly misgivings.  What we consider as relevant information in order to make a proper decision, is determined by the goal which is sought, and the means which must be employed to direct that purposive end.

For Federal employees and Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition determines the necessity of filing for Fed OPM Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the need to compile the compendium of relevant information, while including factual context and peripheral issues, must be evaluated and analyzed from the perspective of the “other” — the administrative specialist who will be reviewing the Federal Disability Retirement application at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

In any form of writing, there must always be a striking of a proper balance between information which constitutes the essence and core of a compilation, and the necessary contextual background which provides the guiding light of a directed narrative.  But some information, far from being mere extraneous narration, can actually undermine one’s stated goal.

Just as letters of bygone days and emails in modernity should never be sent in a fit of anger, so the temperament of retribution should be controlled in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability benefits through OPM, whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal Worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Searching for the Proper Balance

Herbal tinctures have become popular in recent times, as primary reliance upon pharmacological solutions characterized by the paradigm of traditional medicine has resulted in explosions of naturopathic alternatives.  But the proper balance and admixture of alcohol with the substantive extracts from medicinal plants is important in arriving at an effective solution; too much alcohol will merely result in having a potion without efficacy; too little, and the bitter taste will invite gastrointestinal convulsions.

It is always the search for the proper balance for everything in life which one seeks, and preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (routed via one’s agency personnel office if the Federal employee or Postal worker has not been separated for more than 31 days), and whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS, is no different.

Whether it is the medical documentation attached — the extent of detail, the volume of records, the content of history and surgical procedures, how far back, etc. — or one’s Statement of Disability as narrated on SF 3112A, the roadmap which one provides to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is important in presentation for ease of readership, clarity of direction, and convenience of content-viewing by the Legal Administrative Specialist who will be reviewing, analyzing and evaluating the proper balance of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application.

Then, of course, there is the problem of what happens if a Federal OPM Disability Retirement application is denied at the First Stage of the process; for, it becomes all the more crucial to rebut, reply and reinvigorate one’s OPM Disability Retirement application with all of the admixture of legal tinctures, somewhat like the witch doctor who tries different potions and knows which elements will result in a fiery brew of healthy, bittersweet taste of success.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Effective Negations

Why is it that some words are known primarily by their negation?  For example, we use the word “unfettered” to convey the meaning of freedom and release, but rarely see the usage of its non-negative form, as in, “He is fettered”.  Perhaps it is because we no longer approve of placing chains or manacles upon prisoners, and instead have become more civilized, with a concurrent alteration in the usage of the term for more genteel societies.

Often, it is the very negation of X — whether through minimization or leaving out completely that which we originally thought to be so indispensable — which makes for the effective case.  Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the problem is normally not one of what to write about or how much to submit; rather, it is the editing process and the paring down and streamlining of a case which is the hard part.

Most people who suffer from a medical condition which has come to a crisis point where it prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, are not at a loss for words or volumes of documents ready to submit.  But not everything which is material to a case is relevant, and in order to obtain a Federal Disability Retirement from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is always best to streamline on the basis of relevance per statutory criteria.

Thus, we come full circle:  negation of a concept is often the most effective avenue of discourse; the un-negated bundle, left alone, may include too much baggage for the untrained eye.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Gov. and USPS Disability Retirement: Information Overload

Before we even became comfortable with the assignation of the term, “information age“, we were informed that we have already entered into the “post information age”; one has no idea where one stands today because of the lightning speed of our times.

Whether human nature can withstand the onslaught of such rapidity and volume of the multiplicity of component data; of what consequence we are creating in our very midst; whether destruction of societal relationships and connections are truly best for the survival and continuation of our species; all of these concerns matter little.  For, like the story of the complex machine which was once created, and for which Man forgot to build an “off switch”, the ever-forward trajectory of the age of infinite information encroaches whether we desire it or not.

Technology is dependent upon the newness of the next generation of dazzling whistles.  The desire for greater enhancement of stimuli is wired within the human psyche; and like the rat which becomes addicted and comes back for more, we require the overload.

For the Federal and Postal employee who is beset with a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, the process of gathering, incorporating, and applying the information concerning Federal Disability Retirement and the bureaucratic process of obtaining the benefit can be, at best, a daunting task. There is always that “piece of evidence” of statutory linkage which must be considered; and as technology continues to progress without regard to individual circumstances, it is anathema to the regressive nature of a progressively deteriorating medical condition.

Ultimately, however, in whatever “age” we find ourselves in, we must play by the rules of the game, and acquire as much information as we can, and be able to filter that which is relevant as opposed to mere fluff.  Like the proverbial bubble filled with hot air, there is much information “out there” which is either irrelevant, inconsequential, or simply filled with errors.  One must be careful as to the source, and who to listen to.

For Federal and Postal employees under FERS or CSRS, the process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement will be a long and complicated one.  How one gets there will be the key; what information to use, and what tools to covet, will make all the difference in this complex world of post-whatever in which we find ourselves.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: The Volume-based Application

A declaration of the sheer volume of medical evidence submitted is often an indicator of the basis for which a Federal Disability Retirement application was formulated; for, in the end, if reliance of the successful outcome of a Federal Disability Retirement application is expected based upon the longevity and extent of a medical condition, the chances of an initial approval may be somewhat compromised to begin with.

Volume can never replace content; and from the perspective of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is often an underlying suspicion that receipt of a thousand pages of medical documentation indicates merely that volume of treatment is being substituted for the substantive content of meeting the required legal standards.

Much of medical notation and treatment records merely reflect a particular appointment’s mechanical applications — continuation of previous treatment plan; refill of prescriptions; standard positive or negative responses to particular questions; prospective treatment modalities; and, as supportive evidence attached to a substantive medical report, they can reinforce the satisfaction of the legal criteria of establishing the necessary nexus between one’s medical condition and the inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.  But left as a replacement for the doctor’s explicit statement confirming such a nexus, it remains a hollow voice within an expansive but empty chamber.

One should never mistake the legal distinction between “primary” evidence and “supportive” evidence.  The former is meant to establish the nexus between one’s medical condition and the essential elements of one’s job; the latter is submitted to reinforce the former.  When one utilizes the former as the substitute for the latter, it is like the self-delusion that just because you are the best player on a pick-up team in your neighborhood, you are ready to enter into the world of professional sports.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Relevance & the Intended Audience

Relevance within the context of a particular subject can branch out into parallel areas of substantive issues; thus, it may be “relevant” that in Set-X, subset a,b,c…w be included in the discussion of the  primary issue.  But relevance may not be the proper criteria to apply; rather, it may be important to consider the “intended audience” in an effort to tailor, streamline, and make succinct that which can become potentially unwieldy.

In a Federal Disability Retirement application submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the compilation of the evidence needed in order to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Federal or Postal employee is eligible for Federal Disability Retirement, will necessarily involve the selective customization of the evidence to be presented.

One can argue, in compiling a case, that everything is “relevant” — from one’s history of a personal nature (which then resulted in one’s education, one’s background, how one came to become a Federal employee, etc.), to the historical genesis of one’s agency (to the extent that the Federal Disability Retirement applicant’s involvement and intersection with the agency came into being); and many other “relevant” facts.

By such logical connections, one can argue that every event which occurs around the world has some logically relevant connection to every Federal Disability Retirement application.  Obviously, such an approach would be absurd, and ultimately untenable.

How to temper the inclusion of all that is “relevant”?

Always keep in mind the intended audience of one’s submission.  Then, ask yourself the questions:  What is the intended audience seeking?  Will this information help or obfuscate the main point of my application?  Will the intended audience have the time to read through this corollary issue?  And many other similar questions.

Questions are asked not only to seek unknown answers; they are also pointedly applied in order to self-correct the potential pitfalls which the questioner may be advocating.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: The Balance of Information

In every submission of documentary evidence for a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS or CSRS, there is the need for discretionary decision-making.

Not every piece of information is relevant or necessary; volume of attachments does not make for sufficiency of substantive content; allowing for certain information to “speak for itself” is often more effective than a long-winded explanatory addendum; and the extent of irrelevant or unimportant information attached or included may well have a decidedly negative impact upon a decision, both in terms of questions raised as to the reason for inclusion of such material, and the detracting nature of such information from the centrality and essence of the submission.

Balance of information is always a consideration.  As time is always of importance, so is maintaining the acuity of attention upon the case worker assigned to review, evaluate and decide upon a case.  Streamlining; making certain that the focus is always upon the nexus between one’s medical condition and the ability/inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job; and the editorial process of discretionary inclusion of relevant material — these should be the final steps in the formulation and compilation of a Federal Disability Retirement application just prior to submission to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS.

Balance the information — always in favor of relevance, importance, and substantive content.  Fluff is best left to descriptive articulation in a fictional genre.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Relevant Medical Condition

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, make sure that the medical condition which the Federal or Postal employee is listing, describing and delineating, including the symptoms and impact, etc., is “relevant” to one’s Federal Disability Retirement application under either FERS or CSRS.

Let me clarify with the following (outlandish) hypothetical:  A Federal employee has the job and positional duty of pushing a button with his right index finger once every 2 hours.  He suffers a horrendous injury to his left shoulder, left arm, left leg and left side of his body. Use of the left side of his body is nowhere described or required in his position description, and the Agency has never requested that he use the left arm, shoulder or leg, or any part of the left side of his body, in performing the essential elements of his job.  He prepares and formulates his Federal Disability Retirement application, describing the extent of his medical limitation of the left side of his body.  Result:  he is denied by the Office of Personnel Management because the relevance of his medical condition has not been established with respect to the essential elements of his job.

“Relevance” of a medical condition is essential to establish in a Federal Disability Retirement application. Now, had the Federal or Postal worker gone on to describe how the chronic and radiating pain from the left-sided injuries (taking the hypothetical one step further) impacted his ability to use his right index finger, and this was established through the medical opinion of his treating doctor, the case would have had merit and a basis for an appeal, argumentation, etc., would have been established.

But in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, it is important to understand and apply the basic principle in the Federal Disability Retirement case:  It is not just the medical condition which is at issue; it must encompass the relevance of the medical condition to the essential elements of one’s job.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: “The Grab-bag”, “Volume” and the “Last Minute” Case

Procrastination leads to filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS at the last minute, which leads one to simply attach a volume of medical documentation and list a grab-bag of medical conditions. 

Sometimes, such an approach is thought to be the only way of preparing, formulating, and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, especially when there is little or no time left in which to meet the statutory deadline for filing (a Federal or Postal employee must file within 1 year of being separated from Federal Service).  It may well be the only way to file, given that a Federal or Postal employee has only days left to submit the Federal Disability Retirement application. 

The fact is, one can only argue the merits of a case if, and only if, one has met the Statute of Limitations; if one fails to file in a timely manner, then there is simply no opportunity at all to argue the substantive basis for the Federal Disability Retirement application.  Yet, even in “Last Minute” cases, it is important to pause and attempt to streamline a case.  Why?  Because once a case has been filed, and the Statute of Limitations has passed, a Federal or Postal employee is unable to change or otherwise amend the stated and identified medical conditions, as listed on Standard Form 3112A. 

As such, even at the last minute, the grab-bag volume case should be — and can be — prepared and formulated with some thought.  In the end, it will serve the Federal or Postal employee who is filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, well.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: Office Notes

The Office of Personnel Management will often request that a doctor’s “office” or “treatment” notes be attached for approximately the last 1 – 2 years.  What is the purpose of this request?  Normally, to compare whether or not the doctor’s treatment notes reveal the consistency with what is stated in the narrative report prepared by the doctor.  This is often unfair, of course, because the purpose of office notes is quite different from the purpose behind a narrative report requested to support a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.  

Office notes often reflect a cursory overview of the type of treatment rendered, and will sometimes contain statements of the positive advances and treatment responses of the patient/applicant, including any progress made in response to therapy, surgery, treatment, and medication regimens.  Thus, statements such as, “patient is showing good progress” or “Patient comes in today feeling much better” may be used by the Office of Personnel Management to deny a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, and yet such statements must always be seen within the context of treatment, and in no way are inconsistent with a medical narrative report which clearly and unequivocally shows that a Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.  Next:  How to overcome OPM’s unwarranted focus upon the Office/Treatment notes.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire