OPM Disability Retirement Application: Eligibility & Entitlement

The two concepts are often confused; for the Federal employee and the U.S. Postal Service worker filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, the frustration is often voiced precisely because of the misapplication of the legal import between them.

Eligibility is determined by the contingencies which must be met, the thresholds of prerequisites which must be satisfied:  The Federal or Postal employee must be either under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset; the minimum number of years of Federal Service must have been accrued; the Statute of Limitations must not have already passed; further, then, some age limitations need to be considered as a practical matter, to allow for pragmatic justification to even apply.

Entitlement is based upon proof.  As the law is set by statutory authority, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management requires that the Federal or Postal applicant meet certain preset standards of acceptable proof, based upon that which constitutes sufficiency of satisfaction.

The legal standard is based upon a “preponderance of the evidence“; the evidentiary requirement provides that a tripartite nexus be established between (A) the medical condition, (B) the Federal or Postal position which the Federal or Postal employee occupies, and (C) evidence showing that as a result of A, one or more of the essential elements of B cannot be satisfied.  Further, there is the “D” component, and that involves the issue of “reasonable accommodations” and whether the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service can reassign the Federal or Postal employee to a similar position at the same pay or grade.

It is only upon the initial satisfaction of eligibility requirements that the Federal or Postal employee can then further investigate whether entitlement is feasible or not.  Thus, “entitlement” in this sense is not based upon meeting eligibility requirements; rather, satisfaction of eligibility prerequisites allows for entrance into the gateway of establishing entitlement.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Resignation Argument

Sometimes, in preparing to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management under FERS or CSRS, one is either forced to resign or, because of financial or other reasons, it is the best course of action to take.  

In any resignation, one should submit a resignation letter which clearly and concisely identifies the reason for one’s resignation:  Medical inability to perform one’s job.  While such resignation, for the reasons stated, may not invoke what is termed the “Bruner Presumption“, it nevertheless lays the groundwork for arguing that one is entitled to the Bruner Presumption.  

Now, understand that such an argument may fly completely over the heads of anyone and everyone at the Office of Personnel Management.  However, if the case is denied both at the Initial Stage of the Process, and at the Reconsideration Stage of the Process at the Office of Personnel Management, then it must be filed as an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.  There, with an Administrative Judge reviewing the record, while it may still end up that one is not entitled (technically) to the Bruner Presumption, sometimes the strength of an argument in favor of a legal precedent is almost as strong as obtaining the substantive elements of the legal precedent.  

Indeed, if all of the corollary issues surrounding the stated resignation for medical reasons are consistent — the medical documentation; using FMLA; being on OWCP for part of the time, or otherwise only able to work part of the time; etc. — then the fact that one was forced to resign based upon one’s medical inability to perform one’s job, is a consistency worth documenting and arguing thus:  While it is true that one was not removed for one’s medical inability to perform the job, it is “as if” one was removed, because there was really no other choice available.  Sometimes, it is the argument itself which provides the foundation for persuasion, and not the technical application of a legal device.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire