OPM Disability Retirement: The Fallacy of Incremental Procrastination

It will be just another week; or perhaps a month; by the end of six weeks, it will all be resolved.  But the insidious nature of incrementalism is precisely in the cumulative loss from a retrospective viewpoint.  Time comes in ticking seconds; ticking seconds accumulate into a bundle of minutes; and bundles become stacked into hours, days, months — and years.

Waiting on a decision by the Department of Labor for OWCP benefits may be a perfectly acceptable route to take; but then, there are horror stories of delays in approving a simple MRI, leaving aside expectations for getting an approval for a needed surgery or other lesser medical procedure.

While hope may be in things sought for but yet unseen, it is the cumulative nature of time lost which, from a retrospective view, reveals the insidious fallacy of incremental procrastination.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, concurrently with filing for OWCP benefits is often a good idea, precisely because it requires a lengthy administrative process to undergo.  If both are approved, then one must opt for one or the other.  If only one is approved, then the other can be fought for while accepting the benefit of the approved one.

Time is a valuable commodity in any endeavor; for Federal and Postal Workers who seek Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, time management and the recognition of the fallacy of incremental procrastination is an important step in beginning the process.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Service Deficiency & Medical Condition

The Office of Personnel Management will often use as a criteria of denial the argument/basis that despite the fact that an individual may have a medical condition such that the medical documentation states that the Federal or Postal worker can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, nevertheless, there has not been a showing that a “service deficiency” has occurred.  Often, agencies systematically write up performance appraisals without much thought or consideration; more often, Federal and Postal workers quietly suffer through his or her medical condition, and strive each day to meet the requirements of their duties. 

Whatever the reason for the lack of attention or perception on the part of the supervisor or the agency to recognize that the Federal or Postal worker has not been able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, such basis for a denial of a disability retirement application by the Office of Personnel Management is not a legitimate one, because existence of a “service deficiency” is not the whole story:  if it is found that retention in the job is “inconsistent” with the type of medical condition the Federal or Postal Worker has, then such a finding would “trump” the lack of any service deficiency.  That is not something, however, that the Office of Personnel Management is likely to tell you as they deny your disability retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire