CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Bureaucracy and the Objective Algorithm

On the one hand, objectivity can be viewed as a positive thing; for, with it, one is assured that all applications are treated equally, by the implementation of identical criteria across the board.  “Gut feelings”, personal beliefs, and that “sixth sense” is eliminated; and thus is fairness achieved by the equal treatment of all cases, and “exceptional circumstances” are not, and cannot be, considered.

What such an approach gains in large-scale application, however, may lose out in individual cases.  For, if experience and age accounts for anything, it should allow for decisions made outside of the mainstream of thought, based upon those very factors which make up the difference — wisdom from years of engaging in a particular endeavor.

The problem with the bureaucratization of a process is precisely that it fails to allow for exceptions; but concomitantly, it is precisely those unique circumstances which cry out for a carved-out exception.  In a Federal Disability Retirement application, submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, there are always cases where all of the facts and circumstances reveal eligibility; but in applying the mathematical (and thoughtless) algorithm of criteria-based analysis, there may be something missing.  Perhaps the doctor would not, or could not, say exactly X; or the test results revealed nothing particularly significant.

In some ways, the medical conditions identified as Fibromyalgia or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome represent such scenarios.  In those instances, it is important to descriptively convey the human narrative in a particularly poignant manner.

The administrative bureaucracy is here to remain among us; to rise above the level of thoughtless application of a criteria, however, one must creatively encourage the phoenix to rise from the ashes of boredom, and span its wings to include those others who deserve the benefits of Federal Disability Retirement.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Logical Fallacies

The problem with logical fallacies is that the people who make them rarely recognize such errancy (otherwise they wouldn’t repeatedly make them), and further, are often the same people who refuse to recognize them even if it is kindly pointed out.

For example:  In a Federal Disability Retirement case, when the doctor’s report clearly and unequivocally points out that the Federal employee’s medical condition is “permanent”, one would logically infer from such a statement that the condition therefore will last a minimum of 12 months (the legal requirement in a FERS or CSRS Federal Disability Retirement case), and therefore would satisfy the legal requirement concerning that particular issue.

However, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will often fail to make such an inference, and claim that the legal requirement that one’s medical condition must “last a minimum of 12 months” has not been satisfied.

Now, one essentially has three (3) choices in responding to OPM’s claim at the Reconsideration Stage of the process (or, if made a second time with a denial at the Reconsideration Stage, then to the Administrative Judge at the MSPB):  (1)  Ignore the logical fallacy, (2) Argue that OPM has made the logical fallacy and failed to make the correct inference, or (3) Have the issue restated in any updated medical documentation.

Of the 3, the last is probably the preferable, if only because one should expect that any failure to recognize such an obvious inference will likely reoccur again within the same organization (the U.S. Office of Personnel Management), and therefore clarity of statement (or restatement) would be the most effective course of action.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Worker Disability Retirement: The Disappointment of a Denial

A Denial Letter from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management quashes the Federal or Postal employee’s plans for the future, which includes an ability to secure a stream of income, to have the recuperative period in which to recover from a progressively deteriorating medical condition, and generally to be able to “move on” in life.  As all rejections have a negative impact upon a person — in terms of emotional, psychological as well as practical consequences — so a denial letter from OPM is seen as a rejection of a compendium of submitted proof concerning a Federal Disability Retirement application.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, one becomes completely and totally involved in the gathering, compiling and submission of the documentation, statements, narratives and records in order to “prove” that one is eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Such totality of involvement often betrays an ability to remain objective in a case; for, by definition, self-involvement diminishes the ability of an individual to be able to step outside of one’s self, and to evaluate the effectiveness of an endeavor apart from the subjective perspective which everyone brings to bear upon a project, issue, work product, etc.  But objectivity is important, because an uninvolved, detached assessment of a Federal Disability Retirement application evaluates the viability of a Federal Disability Retirement packet without the concerns already indicated — those emotional, psychological and practical consequences which form a part of a person’s being.  That is why having an advocate or legal representation is an integral part of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: A Proper Sense of Objectivity

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS & CSRS, one might ask the legitimate question as to why a “proper sense of objectivity” is even necessary, given the obvious fact that:  A.  The applicant is identical to the person whom the application is about and B.  

From the Merit Systems Protection Board cases touching upon the types of evidence which the Office of Personnel Management is required to accept and review, subjective evidence of pain is acceptable and must be considered.  While both of these statements (A & B) are true, the problem comes about when the focus of the discussion concerning the basis and reasons for granting of a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS are without a proper discussion of the medical conditions which should be discussed in the medical reports and records themselves.

This is where the bridge between the applicant’s own narrative of the medical condition and a proper perspective and balance of a discussion concerning the medical evidence being submitted, is often lost when the applicant for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is unrepresented, and is therefore one and the same as the person who is preparing the application.  

Some sense of emotion is never harmful; some sense of passion and strength of conviction is certainly preferable; too much of the “I” will, however, often result in the loss of the proper sense of objectivity in the formulation of a Federal Disability Retirement application under either FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: The Overstated Case

An overstated case can literally overwhelm the Disability Specialist who is assigned to review and decide upon a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS & CSRS.  Indeed, the sheer size of a voluminous Disability Retirement packet can appear daunting, intimidating, and ultimately one which may find itself at the “bottom of the stack” of cases.  If this happens, then the result can be an approval or a denial; as to the former, it may well be that the quantitative appearance made it appear substantive in a qualitative manner; or it could be that the OPM Representative came upon a self-imposed deadline and decided that it was time to dispose of it, and approve it.  More likely, however, is the outcome of a denial — for, what a voluminous Disability Retirement packet normally reveals, is that it is not a simple connection between one (or perhaps two or three) medical conditions, and their impact upon a Federal or Postal employee’s inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.  Instead, the thickest packet of them all likely means that there is alot of fluff and superfluous material — and if the OPM Representative has to search to find the meat of the matter, it may well be thrown into the dustbin of denials.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal & Postal Service Disability Retirement: Personal v. Objective

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is a personal matter.  It is personal precisely because it is considered as an admission of a disability; it goes to the heart of what a person does in life — one’s livelihood, one’s means of support; and it goes to the perception in our society of the “worth” of an individual — financial worth, productive worth, worth in terms of the ability to support a family, and worth in terms of one’s contribution to society.  Because it is so personal, it is difficult to “objectively” assess and evaluate a disability retirement claim, by the individual who is thinking about filing for such a benefit. 

That is often why it is important to have an attorney represent an individual who is considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  Often, when I am hired at the second or third Stage of the process, I read the initial submissions of the client, and find that the “personal” has indeed overtaken the “objective”, precisely because the very subject of the disability retirement process — the applicant — had to undertake the very personal process himself/herself.  Such personal subjectivity cannot see beyond the very personal nature of the medical condition, and when that happens, it is almost too personal for the OPM representative to make an objective assessment of the case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire