Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Importance of Logical Sequence

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to recognize the logical “sequencing” of the Standard government forms to be submitted.

While the SF 3107 series (including Schedules A, B & C) and SF 2801 series (for CSRS employees, and also including Schedules A, B & C) may generally request personal and professional information of a rather innocuous nature (of course, one may argue that no amount or substantive form of information provided to the Federal government should be considered as such, but that is another issue altogether), the Federal/Postal Standard Forms which both FERS and CSRS must complete — the SF 3112A, SF 3112B, SF 3112C, and SF 3112D (yes, I know, there is a SF 3112E, but that is merely a checklist for the Agency to fill out; although, on SF 3112E is the very justification that proves that SF 3112C is not a necessary form, but rather to be used as an intermediate vehicle in order to obtain the necessary medical documentation for a Federal Disability Retirement application) — should be done so in a proper, logical sequence.  

Obviously, if one is going to utilize the “Physician’s Statement” (SF 3112C) in order to have the doctor provide the justifying foundation for a Federal Disability Retirement application (which, incidentally, the undersigned attorney would advise against), then that should probably be the first and primary Standard government Form to begin with.  It will likely intimidate the treating doctor, and perhaps even confuse the issue; but from a logical standpoint, that would be the one to begin with.  But then, logic and sequence is not of paramount importance in the Federal government; just take a look at the fiscal mess we are in to understand such a sentiment.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: The Necessary Doctor

Ultimately, the doctor who is necessary is the one who will be supportive.  Whenever the question is asked of me whether it is “necessary” to have the support of this or that doctor, my answer is generic in nature:  It is better to have one excellent narrative report in support of one’s Disability Retirement Application, than to have 5 mediocre or lukewarm reports.  Excellence in a Federal Disability Retirement application is encapsulated by the level of passion and support by the treating doctor.  The character and texture of a medical report is not just a set of factual listings of medical conditions and a dry statement of an opinion; rather, the underlying sense of a doctor’s firm and passionate belief in a patient is often evident in the intangible underpinnings of a good report.  There are simply some reports written by a doctor where one knows that it is improbable that the Office of Personnel Management will want to entangle themselves in; the unequivocal voice, tone and tenor of such a report can make the difference between getting an initial approval of an Application for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS, or a denial, resulting in the necessity of going to another stage of the process.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: OPM over OWCP

I still get many emails and phone calls about the onerous, “over-the-top” behavior, and the bullying tactics of OWCP/DOL temporary total disability payments & requirements — everything from constant, incessant and unending, harassing letters, to requiring further evaluations from second and third opinion doctors (or so-called doctors), to constantly requiring one’s treating doctor to justify the continuing disability status, thereby endangering the continuation of the doctor-patient relationship.  And who can criticize or blame the doctor for wanting to drop a patient for the amount of hours he/she has to put into, for “non-medical” issues, and for the time expended which the doctor will never be paid for? 

Yes, Worker’s Comp pays more.  Yes, it is non-taxable.  Yes, there are monetary reasons for staying on OWCP.  But the truth is, money doesn’t buy peace of mind or a life of lesser stress.  OWCP is meant to be a temporary means of providing income — it is not designed for the long term, and indeed, the Office of Worker’s Compensation makes that abundantly clear by their actions.  OPM Disability retirement under FERS or CSRS pays much less, but it allows for independence and a semblence of freedom, not even to mention a life of some dignity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire