Federal Gov. and USPS Disability Retirement: The Morning After

The next day always comes; regardless of the anticipatory delay in accepting the harsh reality of the coming days and months after the celebratory pause allowed through an event, a holiday or the respite of a weekend, the morning after always follows, and the reality of facing the inevitability of that which was and is, delayed perhaps for a moment and a glorious interlude, a certainty of subsequent coming.

So the treadmill begins again; the daily grind must be faced; the trauma experienced the day before must now be encountered anew the day after.

Holidays are great periods of quietude and temporary suspensions of reality, but when the presents are all opened and the guests have all left, the reality of facing one’s daily life must be refreshingly embraced.  For Federal and Postal workers who experience a medical condition, such that the medical condition impacts the ability to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job, consideration needs to be given for Disability Retirement — which provides a longer respite and the needed period of recuperative relief in order to attend to one’s medical conditions.

Delay for a period works for that period; procrastination in order to celebrate an event or a holiday is often a necessary interlude; but in the end, the Federal or Postal worker who must file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS or CSRS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, must make some serious decisions and consider the impending consequences, beginning on the day after, and sometimes even the morning after.

For the Federal or Postal Worker who faces a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents one from performing the essential elements of one’s job, it is always the morning after which is the critical period.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Negation within an Insular Universe

Real ghosts exist in the minds of those who remember.  It is the negation within a man’s mind; the presence of someone or some entity which is retained in memory, which is negated in the objective, physical world, but whose image continues to haunt us precisely because of the ability to remember, which allows us to perceive ghosts in a universe which otherwise fails to recognize them.

When the last Civil War veteran died, the ghosts of that event disappeared.  When the final WWII veteran departs in peace, the screams at Normandy will have quieted.  For the rest of us in the physical universe, it is only the momentary manifestation through a tear drop making its way down the subtle canals of aging creases on a person’s face, which allows for us to make contact within that insular world of memories.

For the Federal or Postal Worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents him or her from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, it is often a hidden pain deliberately concealed; or a psychiatric condition which manifests itself in emotional immobility; but it is merely through performance and other indicia by which we gauge whether something is amiss or not.

Whether one’s coworkers or supervisors believe in the ghosts haunting the Federal or Postal Worker is besides the point; taking care of one’s medical condition is and should be foremost, and filing for FERS Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is a step which often must be taken in order to pursue a rehabilitative path for one’s future.

The negation which one experiences — of that which no longer is — because of one’s medical condition, is real enough; concealing it will only further harm and haunt, and preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is often the first positive step in expunging the ghosts which haunt one’s life.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Early Medical Retirement for Disabled Federal Workers: Harm of Linguistic Impurities

The integrity of the law is kept intact by the careful scrutiny of compliance, via oversight by guardians whose responsibility it is to maintain, challenge and question the diversionary attempt, however minor and in what seemingly inconsequential modalities, such imperceptible excursions into areas outside of the linguistic purity of the law, regulations and case-law interpretation when attempted.

In Federal Disability Retirement law, it is the Federal Agency itself — the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) — which often must be kept “in check”.  For, it is precisely those “allowances” of language which provides for licenses not otherwise granted which, if left unchallenged, will continue to repetitively reappear in subsequent decisions rendered for future Federal Disability Retirement applicants.

Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement denial, it may be that a decision of denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application may state that the medical evidence “does not show that your medical conditions kept you out of the workplace altogether”, or that the diagnostic testing did not establish that the Federal Disability Retirement applicant “had a disabling disease which caused a disablement which incapacitated” the individual — implying, thereby, a standard of medical disability far above and beyond what is necessary for eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Such misstatements must be challenged and refuted; otherwise, the integrity of the law is left soiled and smeared, and future attempts by Federal and Postal Workers may be harmed by the careless allowance of linguistic impurities to surface and fester.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM FERS/CSRS Disability Retirement: Approaching a Reconsideration

The proverbial definition of insanity is to engage in the same repetitive activity with the expectation of receiving a different result.  While such a definition may not provide a clinically accurate or legally acceptable formulation, it does implicate the chaotic character and the futile act of responding in a particularly fruitless manner.

For Federal and Postal employees who have attempted to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, and have received an initial denial, the process of having OPM reconsider one’s case must be approached in a 2-tier manner:  First, one must meet the “deadline” of filing for Reconsideration with OPM within thirty (30) days of the denial, or upon receipt of the denial (although, to be on the safe side, it is best to use the former date as opposed to the latter);  next, with the box checked to indicate submission of additional medical documentation, to then gather, prepare, compile and submit additional medical evidence within thirty (30) days thereafter, unless a further extension is needed and requested.

However, one should also understand that in an OPM Reconsideration case, it will not be the same Case Worker who will review the case, but it will be reviewed thoroughly by someone else as if it had never been previously reviewed. As such, there is the confounding conundrum of a dual anomaly: The First Case Worker who issued the denial based the denial upon certain specific points; yet, what the First Case Worker denied the case upon, may have no bearing upon what the Second, Reconsideration Case Worker will evaluate the case upon.

What does one do? Whatever one’s answer is to this complex conundrum, do not engage in the proverbial act of insanity; better to get some legal guidance than to spin one’s wheels in an insane world of futility.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Worker Disability Retirement: The Impending PIP

The Performance Improvement Plan (otherwise known by the acronym, a “PIP”) is the formal imposition of an administrative procedural process to “assist” the employee into improving his or her specific work requirements, or for modification of certain behavior issues.

From the Federal Agency’s perspective, it invokes a paper trail which will justify additional future actions, if necessary.  From the Federal employee’s viewpoint, it should serve as a warning that unknown other conversations and discussions have been ongoing, and the PIP is merely a surface revelation, with much underworld life and activity unrevealed but indicated by the issuance of the PIP.

If a medical condition is a large part of the reason why underperformance and poor performance justifies the issuance of a PIP, then revelation of the medical condition in response to the PIP should be considered.

Concurrently, because a PIP is an open and declared step towards ultimate and likely termination — especially when the physical or mental condition will continue to prevent the Federal employee from being able to meet the requirements of the PIP — it is a good idea to begin the process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS or CSRS, submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Being a sitting duck merely means that you are the target in a shooting gallery; before your turn comes up, it serves the Federal and Postal employee well to chart one’s own course before it is determined for you.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The “Cover” of an FCE

Most doctors are unfamiliar with the process of obtaining Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS, but are more often than not familiar with the process, procedures, and correlative headaches associated with Worker’s Comp benefits.  Because of this greater familiarity, there is often an underlying suspicion that comes along with it — that rendering any medical opinion must be accompanied by some underlying justification and “objective” methodology of supporting the medical opinion.  And this is understandable. 

In this day and age of malpractice lawsuits, of questioning every test, procedure and opinion, it is rare that a medical doctor is comfortable and secure in rendering a medical opinion about one’s ability or inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, based solely or primarily upon clinical examinations and reviewing of diagnostic results. 

Enter the FCE — the “Functional Capacity Evaluation”.  The FCE provides “cover” for a doctor’s medical opinion, because the doctor can point to an apparently “objective” evaluation — a third party rendering a number of physical tests, exertional exercises, physical capacity movements, etc., which serve to provide a framework from which a doctor can render an “objective ” opinion. 

Why it is accepted that pointing to someone else’s evaluation — as opposed to relying upon one’s own clinical examinations, reviewing one’s history, reviewing diagnostic test results, etc. — is any more valid, is a great mystery.  But if it makes the doctor feel more comfortable, then a person considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS should go ahead and agree to submit to an FCE, if that is what it takes to get the doctor on board.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire