OPM Disability Retirement: Trust

Words have become increasingly malleable.  They can be reformed, restated, interpreted in multiple ways, and ultimately made to conform to what an individual desires it to mean.  Trust is based upon the mutual understanding of words.  As such, the breach of trust can come about quite rapidly, as the deterioration of such mutual understanding becomes apparent.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is often an issue of “trust” between the Agency from which the Federal or Postal employee is filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, and the Federal or Postal employee him/her self.  The extent to which an agency is informed of the process; issues of confidentiality and whether privacy concerns are breached — all involve an issue of trust.

Unfortunately, trust is also an issue which, for whatever reason, is instilled as a desire in human beings.  Most people “want” to trust another individual, and because of this desire, it can be used as a predatory bait for those who may have motivations and reasons other than the best interests of the Federal or Postal employee.

Finally, what this author has always believed, is the following:  The test of sincerity is represented by past actions, not the mere speaking of words.  Yet, even actions do not constitute a complete source of reliability.  In the end, discretion calls for limited revelation of information.  An “only need-to-know, when necessary” rule should always be applied to confidential, private information.  And what can be more confidential and private, than one’s own medical condition in the preparation, formulation and filing of Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Erroneous Information and Its Impact

A number of recent telephone calls clearly reveal that the abundance of erroneous information “out there” or disseminated by Union officials, Human Resource personnel, agency personnel, supervisors, coworkers, etc., continues unabated.  Ultimately, of course, the responsibility for acting upon information gathered — erroneous or not — is placed upon the individual who seeks out such information.  

The problem, as always, is that reliance upon erroneous information can result in irreversible consequences.  For example:  In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS (CSRS is exempted from this particular “requirement”), must one receive a denial from the Social Security Administration before one can file a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS?  Must a Federal or Postal employee be separated from Federal Service for at least 6 months before filing for SSDI benefits?  Must SSDI be approved by the Social Security Administration prior to filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS?  The common thread and answer to all three of the questions posed:  No.  

The consequences of relying upon a “yes” answer, or information which either explicitly or implicitly implies that there is a precondition requirement of filing for SSDI before the Office of Personnel Management will accept and consider a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS?  Delaying of preparing and filing for FERS Disability Retirement until a week before the 1-year Statute of Limitations was about the expire.  

The fact is that the Office of Personnel Management doesn’t much care about whether or not a FERS Federal Disability Retirement applicant filed for SSDI or not, until the time of approval of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  For, the only issue between FERS Disability Retirement and SSDI is a monetary one — whether an offset will occur between the two sources of annuities.

One other point:  When a caller argues, stating:  “But that’s not what X said…”  You can believe whomever you wish; just check out the source, consider the reliability of the source, and determine the consequences of such reliance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire