Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Focus, or Lack Thereof…

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS from the Office of Personnel Management, it is important in the beginning stages of the process to have a clear, charted course in creating the nexus between one’s medical conditions and the type of positional duties required by the Federal or Postal job which one is slotted in.  

Lack of clarity leads to meandering; meandering results in the potential danger of entering into territories which can have a negative and detrimental impact; such resulting negative endings at any stage of the process only extends the time by forcing the applicant to appeal the case to the next stage, and having to correct and explain the mis-steps which resulted from the original lack of clarity and focus.  Thus, a single mistake at the beginning of the process can have a compounding effect upon the entire application process, and that is why it is important to start off with clarity, focus, and a purposeful plan.  

In the study of Philosophy, the subject of Metaphysics almost always encompasses the concept of “teleology” — the idea that there is a purposeful end based upon various logical arguments, such as cause-and-effect, the argument from design, etc.  In analogous form, it is important to have a teleological approach to preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management.  

As with the design argument in metaphysics, there are certain “guideposts” which are important to use — i.e., what the doctors state in their reports; the parameters of one’s position description; the type of job which one has (sedentary or out in the field), etc.  Within those boundaries, one should remain.  Wandering in thought leads to areas of unintended harm.  Stay within the boundaries of the questions posed, and one has a safer haven away from trespassing into areas uncharted, unknown, and undesired.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: The Spectrum of Necessity

Preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS becomes a consequential necessity arising from the impact of one’s medical conditions upon the ability or inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.

The medical condition, whether chronic or situational; whether a single episode or recurrent; or whether from a singularly traumatic event or one of progressive deterioration — the present impact of the medical condition and its likely impact for 12 months or more into the future, as a prognosis by the doctor based upon reasonable medical probability is far more relevant than the historical origin of the medical condition.

The Federal or Postal employee who is contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is often focused, with myopic distractions and irrelevancies, which may be detrimental to the successful outcome of attempting to prove one’s eligibility, upon events, history, and symptoms which have little or no effect upon the criteria of eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Each professional has a specific purpose, and it is important to recognize the specific purpose for which a professional has been retained. Thus, the medical doctor’s job is to attempt to treat the medical condition; the therapist’s job is to provide therapeutic intervention through various means for tapping into the psychology of one’s problems; the physical therapist’s purpose is to set physical goals and attempt to increase flexibility, mobility, reduce pain thresholds, etc.

The job of an attorney, in representing a Federal or Postal employee to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS from the Office of Personnel Management, is to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a Federal or Postal employee meets the legal criteria set by statutes, regulations and case-law.

There is a spectrum of necessity which each professional must meet, and while the spectrum sometimes blurs one into another, such that the distinct lines may become somewhat indeterminate, the singular focus of an attorney who is hired to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS should be to always do that which is required on the spectrum of necessity, to meet the legal criteria.

For, in the end, it is the approval letter from the Office of Personnel Management which the Federal or Postal employee seeks.  Once sought and obtained, the job has been accomplished.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
OPM Disability Retirement Attorney

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: Discretion

“Discretion” is little used term and concept in the world we live in.  Instead, the focus is always upon one’s “right” to speak about anything, to expose everything, to assert one’s demands, etc.  But the conceptual applicability of the term should not be ignored in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS —  one must be “discrete” as to which issues to include in such an application.  

By “discretion” is not meant to imply any attempt to hide or obfuscate an issue; rather, because Federal Disability Retirement is an administrative process with its own inherent rules and laws, there is a containment of the types of issues which one should stick to.  For example, one should minimize and stay away, as much as possible, from such issues as “workplace harassment”, “hostile work environment“, “employee harassment”, etc.  Such issues might be relevant in an EEOC case, but potentially detrimental to a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.

There are Federal and Postal employees, however, who will insist that such issues “need to be brought up” in order to “expose” such injustice.  But everything has a proper time, place, and jurisdictional forum.  Discretion is always a relevant concept — but to recognize that discretion is a necessity in and of itself requires discretionary judgment; something that is sorely lacking in this day and age.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire