In a Federal Disability Retirement case, submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the burden of proving one’s medical inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, always remains with the individual Federal or Postal applicant.
Certainly, there are actions by the agency which may add to such proof (e.g., declaring that the Federal or Postal worker is “not fit for duty” will further concretize an assessment made by a third party; or initiating a separation from Federal Service based upon one’s medical inability to perform the essential elements of the job will trigger the Bruner Presumption, which then invokes a rebuttable presumption and shifts the “burden of production” (note that it is not the shifting of the “burden of proof” — a conceptual distinction important to recognize) over to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Waiting for one’s agency to act upon anything is, however, a very dangerous venture to begin with; thinking that one’s own agency will provide the proof necessary to establish one’s eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits would not only be dangerous, but foolhardy. For, at its most fundamental level, the fact that the very entity which makes a decision on a Federal Disability Retirement application (OPM) is one which is separate and independent from the agency for which one works, creates a chasm which only further magnifies the inherent problem.
OPM pays little to no attention to what the agency does — except, perhaps, when the agency attempts to directly confront and challenge a Federal Disability Retirement application. Otherwise, don’t look for help from one’s agency (generally speaking) when one is filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits; such unfounded reliance will only disappoint, at best.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Agency’s and/or Supervisor’s Actions | Tagged: adverse action on excessive unscheduled lwop, adverse agency action, agency actions against federal employee, anxiety of waiting for fers disability retirement, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, burden of medical documentation to support a federal disability retirement case, Burden of Production, Burden of Proof, condition that prevents to perform the essential functions, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, disability retirement and your agency's power game, essential elements of jobs, expecting unrepresented claimants to bear the burden of presenting a compelling case, federal disability is not determined by agency that employs you, FERS disability retirement, fers disability retirement and the burden of proof concept, how injured federal employees can be freed from carrying that heavy burden on their backs, is it advantageous to wait to be terminated from federal agency?, law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america, meeting the burden of eligibility requirements for medical retirement under fers, nationwide representation of federal employees, opm disability retirement standard forms, personal injury in a federal agency, reliance upon the promised help of the agency may prove to be a mistake, the Bruner Presumption and the burden of proof, the burden of proof concept in opm disability, the bureaucratic agency with little understanding the disabled postal employee, the federal agency and occupational medicine, the standard of proof, the uselessness of waiting for action from the Federal Agency, understanding the difference between the burden of proof and the burden of production concepts in federal disability law, USPS disability retirement, waiting for the agency to take favorable actions, waiting too long for opm disability retirement, what to do when federal agency does not accommodate, when the agency removes you for being physically unable to work | Leave a comment »
