Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Workplace Stress

Stress symptoms are not always visible

Stress is that pernicious aura, neither visible nor definable, with a spectrum of tolerance particularized by individuals, and which pervades silently and invisibly but for the manifestations through physical reactions. It can lead to both physical ailments as well as psychiatric turmoil, requiring medical management ranging from prescription medications to hospitalization.

Who among us knows where the “breaking point” is, for a coworker, Supervisor, etc.? Are there signs of stress where one could have predicted the actions or reactions of another? As a silent killer of incremental gnawing, stress impacts different people in variegated ways, and can often be the primary foundation for multiple medical conditions, but rarely diagnosed as such.

OPM may dismiss your stress claim as being situational: “But it only happens at work” (they may argue)

Stress in the workplace, of course, carries over into personal lives, and conversely, people who experience exponential quantification of stress in one’s personal life, will carry it into the professional arena despite monumental efforts to contain it.  Stress can be the exacerbating force in compounding and complicating already-existing medical conditions.

While stress itself, standing alone, becomes a problematic issue in which to base a Federal Disability Retirement application upon, because it points to the potential of being “situational” and therefore contained within a particular work environment; nevertheless, stress can be, and often is, a part of any Federal or Postal Disability Retirement submission.

Federal and Postal employees can become eligible for OPM Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS or CSRS, if it can be shown that one’s medical condition prevents you from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.

Stress may even affect the way we present our legal cases

What role stress plays in such an application; how it is characterized; the manner in which it is presented; where in the compendium of medical conditions it should be stated — all are important in the complex narrative presentation of a Federal Disability Retirement application, for any Federal or Postal employee who is considering filing for the benefit of Federal Disability Retirement.

In the end, however stress is described, one thing is certain: it plays a large role in everyday lives, and pervades as oxygen and toxins alike permeate the atmosphere of the air we live in and of which we breathe.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: The Danger of Malleable Concepts

Concepts which retain the ability to alter in chameleon-like fashion, switching from subject to object, from noun to adjective, is one which must be used with care and loathing.  For, as the old adage goes, that which can be used as a shield, may also be applied as a sword, and such malleability and changeability can both protect, as well as be used against one.  So it is with stress.

The word itself can be applied in various language games and conceptual constructs, as in:  “I am under a lot of stress”; “The stress is killing me”; “The place where I work is very stressful“; “I suffer from stress”; “The stress I am under is literally killing me”; and many other linguistically transformational usages.  But when it comes to applying the term and concept in a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS or CSRS, one must take care in usage, applicability, and appropriate insertion both as a medical term as well as in everyday common verbiage.  For, stress itself is rarely a valid basis, standing alone, for a Federal Disability Retirement application; and if used wrongly, can be deemed as implying a situational medical condition unique to the individual’s workplace — something which OPM will pounce upon in order to deny such a claim.

Malleability can be a positive force; but that which stands with you, it can also switch sides and suddenly turn against you.  Better to have a steadfast friend than one who seeks greener pastures in a wink of the eye.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Sometimes, It is the Wrong Question

If the question is asked, “Is it difficult to get Federal Disability Retirement benefits based upon a Stress Claim?” — within the context of the poorly-worded question, you may get a wrong answer.  This is because it is the wrong question to begin with.

The concept and term “stress claim” is more appropriately formulated in the context of an OWCP claim.  It implies that one is claiming for compensation based upon a situation — a hostile work environment, a harassing supervisor, etc. — because the origin and inception of the medical condition generically characterized as “stress” implies that it is the workplace which is the originating responsibility for the very medical condition claimed.

Such a question would thus imply a multitude of irrelevant considerations for purposes of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, such as the causality of the claim, whether the cause is merely situational (is it the supervisor causing the stress?  If so, if a Federal or Postal worker moved to another office or agency, could he or she work in the same job?), or contained within the context of the workplace.

The problem with using the term “stress” in a question is that, whether as a noun or a verb, it implies too much while revealing too little.  If expanded upon (e.g., while stress may be the origin, is the medical condition Major Depression, anxiety, panic attacks, etc.), then the entire question takes on a new form.  Sometimes, the problem begins with the question asked which is poorly worded; and to a poorly worded question, a wrong answer might be given.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: OPM's Words

It is a frightening thought that there may be a percentage of Federal or Postal Federal Disability Retirement applicants who read an initial denial from the Office of Personnel Management, and take their words at face value.  From statements such as, “Your doctor has failed to show that your condition is amenable to further treatments” (by the way, when did the Office of Personnel Management obtain a medical degree or complete a residency requirement?) to “you have not shown that you are totally disabled from performing efficient work” (hint:  this is not Social Security, and the standard is not “total disability”), to a full spectrum of error-filled statements in between, one may suspect that there may be a knowing strategy in rendering a denial, knowing that a small percentage of the corpus of disability retirement applicants will simply walk away and not file a Request for Reconsideration. 

Further, I suspect that this occurs more often with certain more “vulnerable” medical conditions — Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Major Depression, PTSD, anxiety, panic attacks; Chemical Sensitivity cases, etc.  Why do I suspect these?  Mostly because such cases are attacked for “lacking objective medical evidence” (see my articles on Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, and similar writings) and failing to provide “diagnostic test results”, etc.  There was a time, long ago, when it used to mean something when someone said, “The Government says…”  In this day and age, I would advise that you take it to an attorney to review whether or not the words of the Office of Personnel Management are true or not.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire