FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: Loyalty & the Agency

It is always with repetitive lack of creativity and imagination that one refers back to an animal generically identified as “the dog” when speaking about loyalty and fidelity.  Dogs have an innate capacity for adhering to that virtue, if indeed it is a virtue, to remain loyal despite adversity and mistreatment and maltreatment.  And even when they exhibit a flash of anger or rebelliousness, they quickly feel regret and sorrow for their actions.

Such statements, of course, are generalized and not universally true; for there are some dogs which become vicious or exhibit traits of remorseless aggression; but that characterization fails to fit the human paradigm.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, there is often a dog-like quality with Federal and Postal employees in refusing to proceed with a Federal Disability Retirement application.  Loyalty, fidelity — all in the face of maltreatment by one’s agency — seems to remain a psychological obstacle; as if conceding that one’s medical condition  prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job somehow diminishes the loyalty one has sacrificed for an agency which ultimately could care less than farthing about one’s health, future or well-being of the Federal or Postal employee.

Strike a dog and it will likely look to its master to find out what it did wrong; mistreat the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from a health issue, and [you may fill in the blank] …

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: If all Roads Lead to …

If all roads lead to Point A, then it is obviously Point A which is of importance; the multiple roads which lead to it, while supportive and secondarily of importance, it is that critical point which must be taken care of.  This principle is important to keep in mind in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.  What is the critical “Point A” of the process?  What is that essential centrality around which everything else coalesces and points back to?  That which is determined to be the foundational center of any process is that which must be thoughtfully formulated and constructed. 

In a Federal Disability Retirement case, for Federal and Postal workers under FERS & CSRS, that critical “Point A” is the Standard Form 3112A — the Applicant’s Statement of Disability.  Think about it for a moment.  That is the form — and the opportunity — to discuss the medical conditions; how the medical conditions impact one’s inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job; whether or not your medical condition can be accommodated, etc.  What is the relevance of a medical report?  Its relevance surfaces only when it is explained in relation to one’s job.  What is the relevance of a job description?  Its relevance emerges only in relation to the explained medical condition.  What is the relevance of how a medical condition impacts one’s life outside of work?  Its relevance becomes apparent only in relation to its pervasiveness and described impact.  All of these issues become relevant because they point back to Point A — the Applicant’s Statement of Disability.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The “Cover” of an FCE

Most doctors are unfamiliar with the process of obtaining Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS, but are more often than not familiar with the process, procedures, and correlative headaches associated with Worker’s Comp benefits.  Because of this greater familiarity, there is often an underlying suspicion that comes along with it — that rendering any medical opinion must be accompanied by some underlying justification and “objective” methodology of supporting the medical opinion.  And this is understandable. 

In this day and age of malpractice lawsuits, of questioning every test, procedure and opinion, it is rare that a medical doctor is comfortable and secure in rendering a medical opinion about one’s ability or inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, based solely or primarily upon clinical examinations and reviewing of diagnostic results. 

Enter the FCE — the “Functional Capacity Evaluation”.  The FCE provides “cover” for a doctor’s medical opinion, because the doctor can point to an apparently “objective” evaluation — a third party rendering a number of physical tests, exertional exercises, physical capacity movements, etc., which serve to provide a framework from which a doctor can render an “objective ” opinion. 

Why it is accepted that pointing to someone else’s evaluation — as opposed to relying upon one’s own clinical examinations, reviewing one’s history, reviewing diagnostic test results, etc. — is any more valid, is a great mystery.  But if it makes the doctor feel more comfortable, then a person considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS should go ahead and agree to submit to an FCE, if that is what it takes to get the doctor on board.

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