OPM Disability Retirement: Confirmation of Worth

Recognizing the value of Federal employees with medical conditions

Diamonds demand it and markets survive by it; investments grow or shrink according to assessed worth, and relationships are maintained by the relative perspective of individuals entangled.  Worth, or the value of a thing, is determined in a capitalist society as a result of increase in demand, and scarcity of supply.

But what of the worth of an individual, as opposed to an inanimate object?  Do we treat it in the same manner?  Should it be?

When first the concept of “human capital” was introduced to the lexicon of capitalist verbiage, it was meant to convey the value of workers in a society consumed by material wealth; but over time, one could argue that the very introduction of such a concept on an equal footing with valuation of goods and services, only resulted in demeaning and dehumanizing the uniqueness of each individual.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to perform the essential elements of one’s job, that very concept of the equality of value between one’s humanness and the worth of services provided, is all too real.

Suddenly, it becomes apparent and self-evident that the two are inextricably entangled:  One’s worth as a human being cannot be separated from the value of the work provided.  The compound concept of “human” and “capital” are inseparably linked, like siamese twins sharing a vital organ, never to be surgically extricated, forever compartmentalized into a conceptual embrace of blissful togetherness.  But that is precisely the time when the value of the individual should be recognized, apart from the worth of the services provided.

A medical condition which prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, should be valued independently, until the medical condition can be resolved.  But as agencies fail to do this, so the Federal or Postal worker has an option to maintain his or her dignity throughout the process:  to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

As value is a relative concept, so the confirmation of worth is relative to the capital investment which a society is willing to put up with; and the confirmation of the worth of an individual should always be paramount in viewing the pinnacle of human essence, as above the primates of an evolutionary yesteryear, and just below the angels gently strumming the harps on a morning when the breeze whistles a tune of hope.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Retirement: SSDI & FERS Offset (Continued…)

If a former Federal or Postal employee receives both FERS Disability Retirement annuity, as well as SSDI (with the proper offset), and finds a job, makes sufficient income to exceed the cap for SSDI — to the extent that Social Security finds that he or she is no longer “entitled” to SSDI benefits and suspends SSDI payments:  will the Office of Personnel Management recalculate the FERS Disability Retirement and reinstate the amount which was previously offset, to restore the full FERS Disability Retirement annuity?  The answer:  A number of recent cases have resulted in a “No”.  Petitions and Appeals are in the works. 

The reasoning and rationale of the Office of Personnel Management is that, because the individual is still “entitled” to SSDI benefits, but the benefits have merely been “suspended”, therefore the FERS Disability Retirement annuity is still offset by the “entitled” amount, not by what is actually received.  Pending the outcome of any Petitions for Review and Appeals to the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Federal and Postal Disability Retirement annuitants must be careful in deciding whether or not to actually pursue SSDI.  If one is planning to work at another job, with a reasonable expectation of exceeding Social Security’s cap for employment income, the fact that if one is restored to earning capacity, one’s FERS Disability Retirement may not be allowed to be recalculated to make up for the lost offset, should be taken into consideration.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS Disability Retirement: SSDI & FERS Offset

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement annuitants under FERS were required to file for SSDI as part of the process.  Most Federal and Postal employees who filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, never obtain an approval for SSDI.  This is natural, of course, and is part of the overall “framework” of the interaction between FERS Disability Retirement benefits and SSDI.  FERS Disability Retirement (as well as CSRS Disability Retirement) encourages Federal and Postal Workers to become employed in the private sector, and to become “productive” (translation:  continue to pay more taxes) in some other area of employment. 

Because Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS does not pay a great amount (60% of the average of one’s highest three consecutive years the first year under FERS, and 40% thereafter; a different computation methodology for CSRS employees, who are becoming rarer each year), the paradigm and plan of the Federal payment system for Disability Retirement annuitants had an implicit public policy approach of “encouraging” all such annuitants to find other employment.  Unless, of course, in addition to the FERS Disability Retirement annuity, one became entitled to SSDI payments, in which case the “cap” for income from other employment becomes much, much lower.  Many considerations should be thoughtfully approached when filing for SSDI, including plans for future employment.  Otherwise, some problems may be encountered if the annuitant receives both FERS Disability Retirement benefits, SSDI, and exceeds the cap from other employment.  More to Follow.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability: The Disabled Federal and Postal Worker

As with most attorneys, I try to maintain an appearance of detached professionalism. It is my job to provide sound legal advice; to guide the client/disability retirement applicant with logical argumentation, rational perspective, and legal foundations as to the strength or weakness of a case, and to guide my client over obstacles, around legal landmines, and through the briars and thickets of “the law”. I try to remain aloof from the inherent emotionalism which arises from the human story of my clients, because not to do so would be to defeat the essence of why a client hires me: to maintain and retain an objective perspective, in order to provide the best legal advice possible. However, to maintain that wall of professionalism is not always possible.

The human story of the Federal and Postal employee is indeed one of encompassing a juggernaut of loyalty, professionalism, dedication, hard work, and the driving force behind and undergirding the economic might of the United States. Yes, of course the United States is built upon the economic principles of the free market system of the private sector; but the services which the government provides are not accomplished by some faceless or nameless entity; each such service — from the letter carrier through “rain, sleet or snow”, to the Special Agents who investigate and put criminals behind bars; from the border patrol agents who guard our security, to the IT Specialist who safeguards our internet viability — is provided by a competent and dedicated worker. That is why I am often humbled by my clients; because, truth be known, the disability retirement applicants who come to me have come to a point with his or her medical condition, where there is no other choice. It is never a question of dedication or hard work; the Federal and Postal Worker has already proven his or her dedication and hard work through the decades of service provided, prior to coming to me.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: OPM’s Generic Denial

Often, cases are mishandled not because of the “present” mistake, but because the case was never prepared for the “long-term” event.  Let me elaborate and explain. Obviously, an applicant for disability retirement benefits under FERS & CSRS wants to win the case at the earliest stage of the process.  The attorney who is handling any such disability retirement case, similarly, would like to “win” the case at the earliest stage possible.  However, sometimes that is simply not going to be the case. 

In an initial denial, it is often important to not only address the case for the Reconsideration Stage, but also to prepare the case for the next stage — the Merit Systems Protection Board (and, similarly, in preparing an application for Disability Retirement, it is important to prepare such an application not only for the initial review at OPM, but also for the Reconsideration Stage).  By this, I mean that, because there is at least a “possibility” that the disability retirement application will be denied again at the Reconsideration Stage, it is important to point out the deficiencies, the lack of clarity, the inadequate reasoning, the outright lies and mis-statements which the Office of Personnel Management may have engaged in as part of the “Discussion” Section of the denial letter.  Often, while OPM may give some “lip-service” to make it appear as if your case was thoroughly reviewed, a closer reading (on second thought, it need not even be a closer reading) clearly shows that OPM did a shabby job in denying a case.  It is what I ascribe as OPM’s “generic denial” — a denial so devoid of any particularity or care as to reveal a complete lack of proper administrative review of the case.  Such lack of proper administrative review is what needs to be shown; it needs to be shown because, if OPM denies the case again, then it is advantageous to the applicant to have the Administrative Law Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board see that he will be hearing a case which may not have been necessary — but for the lack of diligence on the part of OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire