Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Extensive Evidence

When first encountering the vastness of the sea, the young child pointed to it and said to his father with a breathless sense of wonderment and awe.  “It’s like a big swimming pool,” the child said.  “It won’t taste like one, though.  And do you see the waves?”  The boy stood in silence.

The mystery of the world, its infinite puzzlement, in contrast to man’s vain attempt to artificially recreate a semblance of its beauty, revealed itself to the child’s uncorrupted eyes.  Only a child whose first encounter with creation could see the true nature of being; the rest of us, compromised by age, cynicism and self-indulgence, would forever be blind to its breathless scope of beauty.

Such a slice of life story is meant to illustrate the distinction between substantive extensiveness, and a smaller version thereof, in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Volume of evidence (i.e., likened to “the ocean”) can be persuasive; yet, if it is merely an elaborate pool, then lack of substance may undermine its own efficacy.  On the other hand, a short but “to-the-point” medical report may be very effective, precisely because it is exactly what it was meant to be:  without much fluff, the doctor is unequivocal in his or her medical opinion.

The point throughout is that there is never a science in the compilation of proof in formulating an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.  Or, to put it another way:  don’t try to recreate something which cannot be copied; sometimes, the evidence is what it is, and how one presents the evidence will make all the difference.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Different Benefits

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS and CSRS, it is often thought that medical documentation obtained for one venue of eligible benefits (e.g., Worker’s Compensation or SSDI, or VA benefits) can be utilized in the pursuit of FERS or CSRS Disability Retirement benefits.  However, because the applicable criteria which each Federal program or benefit is different, one should always take care before submitting the same, or similar, medical documentation, for multiple and varied applications.  

It is not so much that such documentation cannot be deemed relevant for multiple purposes; rather, relevance is a relative concept, and while X can be relevant for A & B, it may only meet the statutory criteria for A but not for B.

Further, every answer to a question depends upon what the question is.  For FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement, the question always involves whether or not a Federal or Postal employee’s medical condition(s) prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.  The question involving SSDI, VA Benefits or OWCP is a completely different one.  

However, a particular medical document may in fact cross the boundaries of relevance and address a specific issue or aspect of a question, and for that limited purposes, may in fact be “relevant enough” to be submitted.  Such submissions crossing boundaries, however, must be done with care and deliberation; for, while it may answer one aspect of a Federal Disability Retirement application, it could potentially raise multiple other questions which might have been best to leave alone.

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

OPM Disability Retirement: Tools to Use

I am often asked, when filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, Will you use … ?  From the range of tools of evidence to use — including VA disability ratings, to OWCP “CA” forms, MMI ratings, Veterans Administration records, Second opinion doctor’s report, referee opinion report, letters from the Agency indicating unavailability of work; letters from the agency indicating the extent and limitation of willingness to provide for an “accommodation” (whether legally sufficient to rise to the level of meeting the definition of what it means to be an “accommodation” under the law), and multiple other tools — all of it is a matter of legal discretion.  

The general rule that I utilize is that, If it is helpful to my client’s case to prove to the Office of Personnel Management that my client’s Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS will be enhanced and aided by the material, then I will use it.  The discretionary issue which the attorney representing an applicant for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is essentially to “match” the document or piece of evidence with the particular issues which must be proven, and that is a matter of carefully reviewing each piece of evidence in compiling a compendium of evidence which makes up the “whole”.  It takes time, patience, and sufficient legal knowledge to understand which issues are important in proving a Federal Disability Retirement case under FERS or CSRS to the Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement for Federal and Postal Employees: Causality

Hume’s exposition on causality is both interesting and instructive in terms of looking at the validity of an argument.  In this instance, we are obviously making an analogy with how the Office of Personnel Management, and to a larger degree, people in general who make a causal argument and declare that it is a ‘valid’ argument.  David Hume’s argument on causality essentially states that there is nothing in the world other than two independent events (which we merely deem as ’cause’ and ‘effect’), which we repetitively witness.  However, because there is no ‘meta-factor’ beyond the independent events, what he terms as a ‘necessary connection’, therefore there is no certainty beyond a repetition of events.  Thus, Hume argues that we actually never see anything ‘new’ — no ‘necessary connection’ between cause and effect, in the 100th time we observe an event, any more than the first time. 

This is, indeed, analogous to how the Office of Personnel Management views rendering a denial in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS. Look at the lack of logical argumentation in an OPM denial.  It is a series of independent events, delineated and categorized in some semblance of chronological order (perhaps the order that the OPM Representative read the medical documentation):  Dr X says this; Dr. Y says that; then the effect:  “The medical evidence fails to meet the criteria for eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement.”  Like Hume’s description of the world, there lacks a ‘meta-factor’.  Whether the stated causes have any connection (see the analogy?  It is like Hume’s reference to “necessary connection”) to the “effect” is entirely irrelevant.  Events do not need to justify the decision.  It is acceptable to merely refer to medical documents and then come to a conclusion, without any need to justify the validity of an argument.  But, then, that seems to be how most people in the general population formulate an argument these days — based upon how one “feels”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Service Disability Retirement: Each Level of the Process

Disability retirement, as I have often written about, is a process.  Each stage of the process has certain “requirements” which should be met — by “requirements”, I mean that each stage of the process (the Initial Application Stage, the Reconsideration Stage, and the Third Stage of the Process, a Hearing before an Administrative Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board) has certain aspects of proof, certain methods of approaching the level of satisfying the burden of proof, etc.  There are, of course, the further stages of Appeal — at the Full Review at the MSPB, and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals — but these appellate stages deal only with whether or not the Administrative Judge applied “the law” properly or not.

Thus, at the first three stages of the process, there is the necessary requirement of “winning” by submitting the proper medical and other evidence, to persuade the Office of Personnel Management and the Administrative Judge that your Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS meets the legal criteria for eligibility.  This is the season for Reconsiderations; the Office of Personnel Management will often make many of its decisions just before Christmas, and just before the end of the year.  If an applicant under FERS or CSRS gets denied at the Initial Stage, just make sure that you hire an attorney who knows what he or she is doing, and isn’t just a “general practice” lawyer who is as blind as the next person, and will merely be one blind person leading the blind.  Each Stage of the process requires a level of expertise to meet the “requirements” necessary to satisfy that particular level; just make sure that you will be led by an attorney who not only knows what those requirements are, but further, knows how to meet those requirements.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Agency's Power

I hear it in both the content of the question and the anxiousness in the voice of a potential client seeking representation to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS:  Can the agency influence the application negatively?  Can they terminate me upon learning that I am seeking disability retirement?  Can they stop me from using my sick leave?  The power of the Federal Agency can be overwhelming, but there are limits as to what “influence” they can have over a Federal Disability Retirement application. 

Ultimately, good or bad, the Office of Personnel Management is the agency which makes the determination on an approval for all disability retirement applications, and as I have written in many articles in the past, the best way to “neutralize” the power of an agency is to prepare the medical aspect of the Federal Disability Retirement application in an excellent manner.  This is done, first and foremost, by garnering the support of the treating doctor, gathering the best medical evidence possible, etc.  Other actions of the agency — of attempting to place you on AWOL, or filing an adverse action during the process, can normally be stopped by an attorney experienced in Federal Disability Retirement laws.  Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS is not just a matter of filling out forms; it is a matter of securing the future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: SSA Approval, Part III

What if an SSA decision letter is not immediately forthcoming, or does not address the same medical conditions as that applied for in one’s disability retirement application? In such a circumstance, the best argument that can be put forth is to show the Office of Personnel Management that the application submitted to the Social Security Administration is essentially identical with the application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits submitted with OPM; then, to make the argument by analogy that where two applications are essentially identical, and where the higher standard of eligibility required (“total disability” — per SSA) has resulted in an approval, then the law must mandate that a lower standard of eligibility required (disability from being able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s particular job — FERS & CSRS) be by analogy and by logical consistency, result in an approval.

In submitting this argument, it is often helpful to submit a copy of the application/questionnaire filled out for SSA, and point out the identical nature of the medical conditions claimed, along with proof of approval by SSA.  Finally, it is important to refer to particular case-law citations to reinforce such arguments — but, alas, as to this latter point, it is best to obtain the services of an attorney who is experienced in Federal Disability Retirement law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: SSA Approval, Part II

In order for an SSA approval to have an impact upon a Federal disability retirement application, the Social Security Administration’s decision letter granting benefits must provide a detailed explanation as to the basis for the approval, delineating the medical basis, the medical conditions upon which the decision was made, etc.  Thereafter, the applicant can submit the decision letter, but this is where it is important to have an attorney provide the proper legal & foundational argument — to provide the contextual applicability.

The legal basis, to start with, is found in Trevan v. Office of Personnel Management, 69 F.3d 520, 526-27 (Fed. Cir. 1995), in which the Federal Circuit Court found that in making a determination of eligibility for disability retirement, the Board (and thus, by analogy, OPM) must consider an award of SSA disability benefits together with medical evidence provided by the appellant to OPM, and other evidence of disability.  This is when an attorney’s tools of “argument by analogy” and pointing out the significant contextual language in an SSA decision letter comes in handy.  Next:  What if an SSA decision letter is not immediately forthcoming, or does not address the same medical conditions as that applied for in one’s disability retirement application?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire