Immediate Medical Retirement for Disabled Federal Workers: Complex Simplicity

Often enough in life, the most complex of conceptual constructs is constituted by its very simple nature; and, conversely, the seemingly simplest of tasks is characterized by its concealed complexity, only to be revealed upon an attempted unraveling of its internal mechanisms.

Consider the games of basketball or golf; the concept begins with placing a round object into a similarly-shaped chasm.  From a spectator’s perspective, nothing could be simpler; for the one who has practiced the identical motion to succeed, nothing could be more frustrating.  Conversely, witness the passage of a simple law, or of the original amendments to the U.S. Constitution; words of limited complexity; yet, it is the very simplicity of the underlying principles which conceal their complex conceptual underpinnings.

For Federal and Postal employees who first encounter the administrative process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, one might be tempted to “go it alone” because of the seemingly simple construct of the necessary nexus: of the connective bridge which must be established between one’s medical condition and the essential elements of one’s job.

But it should become abundantly (and quickly) clear that it is not the foundational precept of the entire process which makes for complexity, but the ancillary issues, including the required medical documentation, the agency’s attempt to accommodate, or the elements which constitute the essential duties of a position and how they are impacted by a medical condition, etc.  No, it is the coordination of all of the arms and legs which go into preparing and formulating an effective Federal Disability Retirement packet, which makes for its very complexity.

Like the boy who is “all arms and legs” when first he attempts to play the game of basketball, so the nascent encounter with a complex administrative process which has been around for many years, will require some trial and error for the Federal or Postal employee who attempts the feat without assistance.

Trials are fine; it is the errors which become of concern.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Sufficiency of Evidence

At what point is the sufficiency test satisfied?  Who determines when the bathtub is full enough in order to bathe?  What constitutes the threshold of being gluttonous on Thanksgiving, as opposed to having had a hearty meal? And, for a FERS or CSRS Disability Retirement application, what standard determines whether or not a person has submitted evidence sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence test, in order to persuade the U.S. Office of Personnel Management that a Federal Disability Retirement application has met its burden, and that the Federal or Postal employee is therefore eligible and entitled to receive an approval and a subsequent annuity?

Clearly, it cannot be mere volume of medical reports and records; for, otherwise, cases with barely a dozen pages of a report, diagnostic test results and some office notes would not pass through the scrutiny of the OPM Caseworker.  If not volume, then is it the quality of the report and records?  Here, too, while a well-documented file may generally meet the sufficiency test, there are times when OPM will insist upon treatment notes for the past 18 – 24 months before considering a case for approval.

The sufficiency test is often an admixture of quality, quantity, and a compendium of selectively highlighted documentation which, in their totality, prove an OPM Federal Disability Retirement case.  There are no two cases alike, though similarities may abound.  Each case must be seen in its own unique light, and within that context, a case must be carefully constructed and compiled.  Only in this manner and approach will the sufficiency test be met, and only after a careful and thorough review of the facts, issues and particular uniqueness of a given case — somewhat in a reflectively similar manner as OPM will do in reviewing the submitted case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Basics & Complexity

Appearance versus reality; ease of effort as opposed to great physical exertional requirements; basic components which make up for a complex composite — the inverse/converse of oppositional forces may seemingly contradict each other, but in most cases, they are entirely compatible.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the initial encounter with the multiple forms which must be completed, the complexity of the questions requested to be responded to — with the underlying sense that each question contains an implicit “trickiness” where the government is attempting to either cage you into a corner you do not necessarily want to be pushed to, or otherwise to state things which cannot be answered in such simplistic format — all betray a conundrum:  Is it as simple as the questions appear?  Or is the complexity hidden in the appearance of such simplicity?

Then, of course, a partial answer will surface when a Federal Disability Retirement application is denied by OPM at the First Stage of the process:  all of a sudden, various legal criteria are cited; standards of proof heretofore unmentioned are recited like a litany from a food recipe; and by the way, if it gets denied again, you get to read through a thick legal packet concerning your “appeal rights” from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.

Yes, it appears simple; it’s only that the complexity remains hidden in the compendium of laws, statutes and regulations which undergird the entirety of the complex administrative procedure encapsulating Federal Disability Retirement law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Complexity and Tailoring

Every Federal and Postal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS is unique because of the particular medical conditions which comprise the specific factual makeup of each case.  

That said, there are various “templates” out there, put out by services and attorneys, who have formulated a methodology based upon a template — often, based upon a past success or two.  While templates are fine, one must always be careful that the uniqueness of a particular case is never lost.  For, ultimately, every Federal and Postal disability retirement application under either FERS or CSRS inherently contains a uniqueness because of the particular complexity of the case.

As such, each case must be tailored to reflect the uniqueness of that case.  There are certainly recurring themes and contextual frameworks, as well as statutory references and case-laws which repetitively apply to most, if not all, cases.  But such generalized applications must nevertheless be tailored to fit and apply to the particular facts and circumstances of a case.  Beware of borrowing from, or hiring someone to apply, a “One size fits all” approach.  You may find that you went to the wrong tailor.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Attorney