Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Precipices, Edges and Flat Earths

When the earth was believed to be flat, to venture out beyond the known and navigable waters was deemed to foolishly challenge an inevitable fate; and to reach the precipice and totter carelessly at the edge is to defy and challenge the gods of fate, as Macbeth does repeatedly throughout the Shakespearean play.

Fate itself is a concept which has lost its meaning; that which is no longer believed, is erased through lack of usage, soon departs unnoticed behind curtains of anonymity.  For most people in the world, lives are lived as unmarked gravestones without headlines, fanfare or public accolades; and that is how it should be.  Seeking out one’s 5 minutes of fame; propelling one’s face in front of a news camera; stepping conspicuously in the background where a camera is being shot and waving furiously to get noticed; somehow, loss in belief in fate has been replaced with an urgency to be noticed for the moment.

For the Federal and Postal employee who quietly suffers from a fate hidden, unknown, or yet to be known, reaching the precipice, feeling like a tottering child on the edge leading to a deep chasm, or venturing beyond the safety of known waters, is a daily occurrence when facing a medical condition which threatens one’s livelihood.  Living on the edge is more than mere metaphor of tempting fate; it is a sense that the world is in turmoil, is uncaring, and is a harsh residue of human complacency.

Federal Disability Retirement benefits, filed through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is an avenue which allows for the Federal and Postal Worker to escape the daily sense of being in those situations of remote dangers, by allowing for a base annuity, securing one’s future, and giving an opportunity to remain productive in a private-sector vocation.  Most importantly, it allows for one to recuperate from the physical and mental ailments which lead us into unnavigable waters of dangerous precipices and jagged edges, for the safer paths of secure fates.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: This Side, or the Other, of Paradise

It represents that mythical existence — whether in a physical sense, or a metaphysical state of being — where harmony, the absence of pain and a continuum of pleasure and contentment are experienced daily and in sustained fashion.  Perhaps it is a fictional creation propelled by those who have known the negative of that which has been formulated.

Ultimately, it is the place to which we strive, and whether we arrive just on the other side of paradise, or on this side, is the criteria which society judges as to the success or failure of a given life.  And who is the judge, and what right to render such a judgment?  One’s own assessment, and the insular world of one’s psyche, may well be enough for most; but that often merely involves the sleight of words, of redefining what words mean, in order to fit the conceptual construct which others have proposed.

For the Federal and Postal Worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that he or she must contemplate filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS or CSRS, the capacity to attain a level of restorative quietude through relief from daily activities, may well be enough to constitute a state of paradise.

It is amazing how the threshold of meanings and goals to achieve are lowered considerably when one experiences pain or psychological turmoil and hurt.  Only those who have never experienced a medical condition fail to know what it means to be caught in the proverbial web of medical necessity.

For the Postal Worker and the Federal employee whose lives are shaken by a medical condition, whether it is physical pain or cognitive dysfunction, or both, the difference between landing on this side of paradise, or on the other side, is often determined by whether one gets Federal Disability Retirement benefits or not, and whether the period of rest and restorative state of being is attainable by securing one’s future stability and sense of peace.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Early Retirement for Disabled Federal Workers: Essential Elements

In preparing, compiling, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, one must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (a legal standard which has been set by statute) that a Federal or Postal worker who has a minimum of 18 months of Federal Service (under FERS) or 5 years (under CSRS) suffers from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s particular kind of job. 

The concept of “essential elements” is variously defined and expanded upon by court cases, but one way to identify the “core elements” of a particular job is to review the position description, and to extrapolate from the official description of the job.  Another place, of course, is the Agency’s performance review, which will often identify the core elements. 

One should never overlook the obvious, in addition to that which is identified in the position description — the fact that one is required according to the position to work full time; to be “on site” for many jobs (thereby precluding tele-commuting as a viable permanent accommodation); and certain other inherently obvious elements which are often mentioned in passing — such as sitting for long periods of time (a sedentary position); being required to stand or walk for extended periods of time; and other such “essential elements” which make up a position, and are inherently required by the very nature of the job.  Those “obvious” but often unmentioned essential elements are notable for the fundamental requirements of being able to successfully perform a job.  They should not be overlooked.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Early Retirement for Disabled Federal Workers: The “Almost” Medical Inability to Perform Termination

Often, Agencies will proceed to propose a removal of a Federal or Postal employee based upon reasons which clearly “imply” one’s medical inability to perform one or more of the essential functions of one’s job, but explicitly, based upon other stated reasons — e.g., “Failure to Maintain a regular work schedule” or “Being Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL)“.

Then, the frustrating scenario is when the Agency — in the body of the proposed removal letter — refers to and acknowledges the existence of multiple medical conditions which form the foundation, reason and justification for being unable to maintain a regular work schedule or being absent from the job (whether with or without official sanction or approval).

The key in such circumstances, of course, is to try and attempt to make the “implicit” (references to one’s medical conditions and their impact upon one’s inability to perform one’s job) “explicit” (having the Agency change or amend the reasons to instead state:  “Removal based upon the employee’s Medical Inability to Perform his or her job”).

Such a change, of course, would be helpful in a Federal Disability Retirement application under CSRS or FERS, precisely because it would invoke the Bruner Presumption, which would then make it that much more difficult for the Office of Personnel Management to deny a Federal Disability Retirement application.  For, that is the ultimate goal:  to obtain an approval of the Federal Disability Retirement application; and any such advantage gained brings the Federal or Postal employee one step closer to that ultimate goal.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Doctor II

Work is good for a person — being productive, being useful, being a contributing member of a team, an agency, an organization; it provides a sense of self-worth, dignity, and therapy. On the one side, that is why a Federal or Postal worker takes such a long, careful and hesitant step before deciding to file for Federal Disability Retirement. On the other side, the treating doctor knows the medical, therapeutic and healing value of work.

That is often why doctors are reluctant to agree to support a Federal or Postal worker’s decision to file for disability retirement under FERS & CSRS. Such reluctance, however, is mostly due to an unfamiliarity with the legal standards required to obtain disability retirement. Most doctors are familiar with the Social Security process of filing for disability benefits; and, further, many doctors are familiar with State Worker’s Compensation benefits and process; and, to a lesser extent, Federal Worker’s Compensation programs. Very few doctors are familiar with Federal Disability retirement benefits under FERS & CSRS. That is why it is important to clearly, concisely, and thoroughly inform the treating doctor of the process — and, often, it is wise to have an attorney who can clearly explain and delineate the process.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The Doctor

Doctors hate administrative duties.  They went to medical school, and they want to practice medicine, not law.  If they wanted to engage in vast amounts of paperwork, they would perhaps have gone to law school.  As such, paperwork, writing medical narrative reports for their patients, providing medical opinions in a report — they are part and parcel of the dreaded “paperwork” — somewhat like filling out all of the forms for medicare, medicaid, insurance, etc. to get paid. Such paperwork is often left to the “administrative staff”, and therefore doctors are only sporadically required to actually prepare any paperwork.

This presents a peculiar problem for a potential disability retirement applicant, because in order to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, an applicant must have a doctor’s narrative report which delineates certain issues, addresses certain issues, and renders certain opinions.

Thus, the crucial question becomes: How does one approach a doctor and convince him or her that preparing a proper medical report is an integral aspect of treating the patient? The answer: It must be done with diplomacy, sensitivity, caution, guidance, and understanding, all bundled into one. Above all, it begins with a relationship — a patient-doctor relationship that has been formed over many, many years. And, indeed, that is the requirement under the case-laws at the Merit Systems Protection Board governing disability retirements — that those opinions rendered by treating doctors of long duration are accorded greater credibility than single-examination doctors. And it all makes sense.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Agency Supervisors & Their Responsibility

Agency Supervisors possess powers which can be easily misused. As such, the Supervisor who must fill out a Supervisor’s Statement — Standard Form 3112B — for the disability retirement applicant, must do so with care, integrity, and a sense of reasoned perspective and fairness. “But I’m only telling the truth of what I believe,” is often the justification of a Supervisor who deliberately inserts damaging, self-serving and derogatory remarks on the Supervisor’s Statement. But such “truth” goes beyond the proper role of a Supervisor. Indeed, it is often helpful to discuss the content of intended remarks and statements with the Federal or Postal employee first. Such consultation provides a true and balanced opportunity — a field of fairness and a reasoned perspective — to ensure that a Supervisor is indeed being fair, balanced, and neutral, and not allowing for any personal “feelings” of acrimony or animosity to dilute and pollute a fair appraisal of an employee’s performance, conduct, and impact upon the Agency’s purpose, mission, and goals intended and accomplished. For, ultimately, a Supervisor’s Statement is not about what a Supervisor’s “belief” is; it is not about whether the Supervisor likes or dislikes a Federal or Postal employee; rather, it is supposed to be a balanced, objective perspective delineating the impact of a Federal or Postal employee’s performance or conduct, relative to his or her medical condition and the ability of that employee to perform the essential elements of a job.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM’s Medical Questionnaire and the Issue of Accommodations

In this article, I will be addressing two separate issues: First, the issue of OPM’s Medical Questionnaire, and next, the issue of Accommodations.

OPM’s Medical Questionnaire

At each stage of the process, an annuitant must always see his or her monthly annuity as a right which must be fought and protected. In recent months, I have seen an increase in cases where an individual has been an annuitant, but has lost his or her annuity because OPM’s Medical Questionnaire (sent out to selected annuitants every two years) was not taken seriously. Whether the increase is by coincidence — that a greater number of annuitants failed to respond to the Medical Questionnaire seriously, or because the Office of Personnel Management is scrutinizing annuitants more carefully — is irrelevant; what is relevant is that, whether you are fighting to obtain your disability retirement, or fighting to keep your disability annuity, the approach should always be consistently the same: be prepared to defend your disability annuity aggressively.

Some basic rules in responding to OPM’s Medical Questionnaire:

Rule #1: Take it seriously. Yes, the four questions seem fairly straightforward and innocuous: Get your treating doctor to provide current clinical findings based upon a recent examination; get a current diagnosis; a current prognosis; and finally, a clinical assessment of risk of injury or hazard to self if you returned to your former job. This all sounds simple enough, and it is, if you follow the first rule: take it seriously.

Rule #2: Don’t have your doctor send in the updated medical report directly to OPM without letting you first see it. I have represented more people for breaking this rule. Think about it — why would you allow a report to be sent to OPM without first reviewing it? Take responsibility; protect your disability annuity. Make sure the doctor is addressing the issues that need to be addressed – and properly.

Rule #3: Make sure that your doctor addresses the specific medical conditions for which you obtained your disability retirement. While you may have had 5 different disabilities that impacted your ability to perform your job when you first applied, when the Office of Personnel Management grants you your disability retirement, if the first one listed on your application qualifies you, they will grant you the disability retirement based upon that first disability, and will not proceed to consider the remaining 4 disabilities. In responding to OPM’s Medical Questionnaire, the disability annuitant must establish that he/she suffers from the same disability upon which the disability retirement was based, and that he remains unable to perform the duties of the last position he occupied prior to being granted disability retirement, or that his condition is incompatible with useful and efficient service or retention in the position. See Tompkins v. Office of Personnel Management, 72 M.S.P.R. 400, 404 (1996); Prestien v. Office of Personnel Management, 8 M.S.P.R. 698, 704-05 (1981). Further, an annuitant is not entitled to continuation of disability retirement simply on the basis that his physical condition is unchanged since he was granted disability retirement, where present medical evidence does not establish that he is disabled. See Dougherty v. Office of Personnel Management, 36 M.S.P.R. 117, 121 (1988). When I have represented a client and obtained disability retirement for my client, I send out a letter apprising the client of his future rights and obligations — one of them being, to keep in regular contact with his treating doctor, so that when or if a Medical Questionnaire is received, there is already an established doctor-patient relationship, and you don’t go about scrambling to find a doctor who is willing to write a responsive report to the Medical Questionnaire.

Finally, Rule #4: Keep it simple. The doctor’s response to OPM’s Medical Questionnaire need not be lengthy and complex: indeed, it can be a single paragraph, and refer to a recent examination, and include treatment or office notes, and simply state: Current diagnosis; symptoms; prognosis; and a statement that “X is still disabled based upon medical condition Y from his former job as a ________, and cannot go back to his former job because of his medical conditions.”

Thus, to reiterate: Take the OPM Medical Questionnaire seriously; keep in regular contact with your doctor; make sure the doctor addresses the medical conditions that you were found to be disabled for; and don’t allow the doctor to send it directly to OPM without first reviewing it.

Second Issue: Accommodations

Recent cases by the Merit Systems Protection Board continue to affirm the very important legal principle of protecting Federal and Postal employees from being assigned ad hoc, or “made-up” jobs, while still being slotted in the original position, as reflected in one’s PS or SF form 50. Just because you are offered a “modified position” that appears to be ‘official’, if you haven’t been reassigned to a vacant position that actually exists, then you are still eligible for disability retirement. Don’t be fooled. In the recent case of Cadman v. OPM, Docket No. CH-844E-07-0002-I-1, the Merit Systems Protection Board, upon a Petition for Review by the Appellant, again revisited this issue, and again referred to the important case of Ancheta v. Office of Personnel Management, 95 M.S.P.R. 343 (2003). In Ancheta, the Board held that a modified job in the Postal Service that does not “comprise the core functions of an existing position” is not a “position” or a “vacant position” for purposes of determining eligibility for disability retirement. The Board noted that a “modified” job in the Postal Service may include “’subfunctions’ culled from various positions that are tailored to the employee’s specific medical restrictions,” and thus may not constitute “an identifiable position when the employee for whom the assignment was created is not assigned to those duties.” Id., at p. 14. The Board thus suggested that a “modified” job in the Postal Service generally would not constitute a “position” or a “vacant position.” Id. Thus, what the Board in Ancheta was saying, and reaffirmed and reiterated in Cadman, is that the “made-up” job that the Postal Service puts on an “official-looking” Modified Job Offer Sheet, is in all likelihood not an accommodation. This is true of jobs in non-Postal Federal Agencies, also.

The Board’s holdings in Cadman and Ancheta, and the long line of such legal reasonings, clearly strengthen Postal and Federal employees’ rights concerning disability retirement, when placed in the context of longstanding law as held by the Federal Circuit Court in Bracey v. Office of Personnel Management, 236 F.3d 1356, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001). I have previously addressed this issue in my other articles, of course, but let me reiterate that in Bracey, the Federal Circuit Court delineated and outlined the applicable provisions governing disability retirement, stating that “the pertinent OPM regulation elaborates on the statutory definition by providing that an employee is eligible for disability retirement only if (1) the disabling medical condition is expected to continue for at least one year; (2) the condition results in a deficiency in performance, conduct, or attendance, or is incompatible with useful and efficient service or retention in the employee’s position; and (3) the agency is unable to accommodate the disabling condition in the employee’s position or in an existing vacant position.” In Bracey, the Court clearly stated that an employee must be reassigned to a “vacant” position, and not one which was merely “made up”, and the reasoning of the court is clear: the Court Stated:

“We Agree with Mr. Bracey that OPM’s argument fails, because the term ‘vacant position’ in section 8337 refers to an officially established position that is graded and classified, not to an informal assignment of work that an agency gives to an employee who cannot perform the duties of his official position. A ‘position’ in the federal employment system is required to be classified and graded in accordance with the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements associated with it.” Id. at p. 1359

Further, the Court went on to state that the term “vacant position” means “something that is definite and already in existence rather than an unclassified set of duties devised to meet the needs of a particular employee who cannot perform the duties of his official position.” Id. at 1360.

Putting Bracey, Ancheta, and Cadman together, Federal and Postal employees have a formidable argument which protects their disability retirement rights: When you become medical unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of you job, as outlined in your position description, Agencies cannot leave you in the same job slot and make up different things for you to do. The idea of ‘accommodation’ is a term of art, and must not be viewed in the way that the ‘general public’ might view it: if you have a medical condition or disability, and your employer says that the Agency has ‘created’ a position that somehow does away with those essential elements of your job that you cannot do anymore, that is NOT an accommodation. In fact, an accommodation is the very opposite: it is where the Agency provides some means such that you CAN continue to do all of the essential elements of your job.

I know that I keep reminding you of this, but I think that it is worth repetitive reminders: Disability retirement is a benefit that all Federal and Postal employees signed onto when you became employed. Many private sector jobs don’t offer this benefit, but then, such private sector jobs of equivalent positional requirements often pay more in base salaries. It is one of the benefits you acquired — a right — in the event of a medical condition or disability which prevents you from continuing in your career. As such, when you can no longer continue in your Federal or Postal job, you must look upon disability retirement as a right and an investment for your future — one which must be aggressively sought after, and once obtained, protected with similar diligence and aggressiveness.

I am an attorney who specializes in representing Federal and Postal employees to obtain and retain disability retirement benefits. Like the giraffe, you cannot allow for appearances to fool you; you must always and aggressively protect your rights and future. The leopard is known for quickly and aggressively capturing its prey; the camel is known for long and sustained trips. You need to be both a leopard and a camel – to pursue your future investment aggressively, and to sustain your investment for a long time into the future.

For more information, contact me in one of these ways: (1) view my website at www.FederalDisabilityLawyer.com; (2) email me at federal.lawyer@yahoo.com; or call me at 1-800-990-7932.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire