The problem with most people is that they come at a conversation with a selective focus — and listen for that which they want to hear, and filter all other information which fails to fit the paradigm of their predetermined perspective.
In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the question of accommodations via Standard Form 3112D comes to the fore — often because of the selective focus of issues on the part of OPM.
The fact that an agency may have engaged in work-place modifications, or allowed for temporary alleviation of certain elements of one’s job description; or even provided a state-of-the-art ergonomic chair with 3-speed controls with horizontal landing mechanisms — does not mean that the agency was able to, or did, accommodate the Federal or Postal employee under the legal meaning of that which constitutes a viable “accommodation” .
For, that which the agency does must allow for the Federal employee to perform the essential elements of his or her job, and any such attempted “accommodation” which does not meet that standard, is technically not an accommodation at all. It is merely an artifice and a cosmetic make-over in an effort by the agency which allows for the agency to declare that they have “accommodated” the individual Federal or Postal employee.
Rarely does the question on SF 3112D get accurately responded to; for, the concept of “attempted” accommodations is precisely the point — if it was attempted, and did not work, then the agency has an obligation to concede and describe that point; but from the Agency’s myopic perspective, any “attempt” constitutes an accommodation, and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will embrace such an assertion with open arms.
What to do about it? Always focus upon the central point of a Federal Disability Retirement application — it is a medical retirement. Thus, the doctor’s opinion is sacrosanct, and should be repetitively emphasized.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Accommodation and Light Duty | Tagged: accepting opm disability clients all across america, accommodation of federal employees, accommodation under ada not the same as under opm disability law, acomm, acronyms and abbreviations related to opm disability retirement, all about federal disability retirement news and trends, assessing the viability of your federal disability retirement claim, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, civil service eeoc and accommodation issues, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, essential elements of jobs, federal disability law blog, federal workmans comp limited duty capacity, future of limited duty us postal employees, injured light limited duty supervisor or 204b, issues that can arise during the disability process, issues to mention in fers disability application, lawyer federal retirement disability, legal accommodation for Postal workers, life after an accident while working for the federal government, light duty in the Postal Service, limited duty assignments united states postal service, limited jobs for light duty employees, opm disability and problems with the official job description, opm's excuses to deny your federal disability retirement, owcp accommodations, owcp disability retirement, postal service disability retirement, reasonable accommodation of federal workers, recuperating from an illness after working for the federal government, representing federal employees from any us government agency, the administrative process to get medical disability, understanding the legal definition of accommodation in federal disability retirement, usps accommodation, usps disability is supposed to be administrative non adversarial procedure, USPS disability retirement benefits, what to do when federal agency does not accommodate, when the "limited duty" postal worker cannot keep the pace, when the federal agency is unable to accommodate, working on a disability claim and getting your claim approved | Leave a comment »
Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: SF 3112B
It is amazing how a Supervisor’s Statement is completed. Normally, it is completed without much thought; sometimes, it is completed with too much thought (and self-protective, CYA language concerning how much effort the agency attempted in “accommodating” the employee, when in fact little or no effort was made); more often than not, there is a last, parting shot at the employee — some unnecessary “dig” which often contradicts other portions of the statement; and, finally, every now and then, the Supervisor’s Statement is completed in the proper manner, with forethought and truthfulness.
Fortunately, the Office of Personnel Management rarely puts much weight on a Supervisor’s Statement in making a determination on a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS — unless there is some glaring statement of a deliberate attempt to undermine the Application. This is rare, because it is a medical disability retirement, not a Supervisor’s disability retirement — meaning, that it is the medical opinion, not the opinion of a Supervisor, which is (and should be) most important.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: OPM Disability Actors - The Supervisor, OPM Disability Application - SF 3112B Supervisor’s Statement for CSRS and FERS, OPM Disability Process - 1st Stage: OPM Disability Application | Tagged: assessment for postal disability retirement from supervisor, can the opm take seriously the integrity of federal supervisors?, cases where a federal employee is denied light duty, completing the sf 3112b with integrity, csrs disability benefits, cya philosophy in postal management, documentation in support of the disability retirement application - 3112b, don't always count with the support of an agency supervisor, ethical issues when filing the 3112b form, federal disability retirement, federal supervision bullying even in the opm disability application, federal supervisor response to employee work injury, fers disability application supervisor comments, FERS disability retirement, fers federal government disability retirement, filing a supervisor's opm statement with care and integrity, financial compensation for injured or ill federal workers, how much thought and effort put on the sf 3112b, how the sf 3112b should be filled out, if the supervisors tells lies in the opm disability application, injured light limited duty supervisor or 204b, injured postal workers at the mercy of their supervisors, more on the opm disability application supervisor's statements, neutralizing negative statements from supervisor's statements in sf 3112b, opm disability abuse of power adverse actions, opm disability and the supervisor who says everything's fine, opm disability annuity, OPM disability retirement, opm supervisor statement disability retirement, Postal management and supervisor positions, representing federal employees from any us government agency, responding to revengeful supervisors in the us postal service, SF 3112B Supervisor’s Statement, supervisor's statements and defamation, the 3112b should not be used as a means to get even with the employee, the challenge of ethical behavior in the federal workplace, the effortless sf 3112b, the injured federal worker and the unfair supervisor, the perception of accommodation among federal supervisors, the postal service supervisors and their claim of support, the revenge of a postal supervisor, the usual cya philosophy from the federal employment "leaders", unsympathetic federal supervisors and the plight of the injured federal worker, USPS disability retirement, usps supervisors and their impact on the postal employee's disability, usps workers who retire with a disability, when supervisors don't notice any medical condition in federal worker, when the supervisor files the form with fairness and balance, why the sf 3112b matters less than the doctor's statements, your supervisor and federal disability retirement | 1 Comment »