• Home
  • About Me
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright
  • Credentials

OPM Disability Retirement

Entries RSS | Comments RSS
  • Pages

    • About Me
    • Contact Us
    • Copyright
    • Credentials
  • Categories

    • Accommodation and Light Duty (40)
    • Advantages of Federal Disability Retirement (27)
    • Agency’s and/or Supervisor’s Actions (44)
    • Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM (43)
    • Burden of Proof (30)
    • Clarifications of Laws or Rules (160)
    • CSRS Disability (1)
    • Eligibility Criteria (18)
    • Evaluation Of Your OPM Disability Claim – How Do I Know If I Have A Strong Case? (17)
    • Fables, Stories and Analogies about CSRS and FERS Medical Retirement Benefits (64)
    • Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted (35)
    • FERS Disability (10)
    • Important Cases, Legal Updates and/or the Current Process Waiting Time (49)
    • Life after Federal Disability Retirement (21)
    • LWOP and Sick Leave in OPM Disability (12)
    • Mental/Nervous Condition (48)
    • Miscellaneous (179)
    • OPM Disability & OWCP Workers Comp Filings (44)
    • OPM Disability & SSA Social Security Disability Benefits (39)
    • OPM Disability & VA Benefits (4)
    • OPM Disability Actors (286)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Agency (54)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Applicant (77)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Attorney (55)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Doctor (53)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Human Resources Office (17)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The MSPB Administrative Judge (6)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The OPM Representatives (31)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Others (9)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Supervisor (13)
    • OPM Disability Administrative Law (Statutory and Non-Statutory Law) (13)
    • OPM Disability and a Hostile Working Environment (11)
    • OPM Disability Application (185)
      • OPM Disability Application – SF 3112 Disability Retirement Application Package (28)
      • OPM Disability Application – SF 3112A Applicant's Statement of Disability for CSRS and FERS (62)
      • OPM Disability Application – SF 3112B Supervisor’s Statement for CSRS and FERS (9)
      • OPM Disability Application – SF 3112C Physician's Statement for CSRS and FERS (15)
      • OPM Disability Application – SF 3112D Agency Certification of Reassignment and Accommodation Efforts for CSRS and FERS (7)
    • OPM Disability Process (158)
      • OPM Disability Process – 1st Stage: OPM Disability Application (35)
      • OPM Disability Process – 2nd Stage: OPM Reconsideration Stage (28)
      • OPM Disability Process – 3rd Stage: MSPB Stage (17)
      • OPM Disability Process – 4th Stage: Petition for Full Review at the MSPB (4)
      • OPM Disability Process – 5th Stage: Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (2)
    • OPM Disability Retirement & EEOC Complaints (4)
    • OPM Medical Questionnaire (8)
    • Post-Application Issues (19)
    • Pre-Application Considerations (427)
    • Professional & Expert Witnesses (5)
    • Reasonable Medical Treatment and Compliance Issues (6)
    • Reflections of an OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer (1,730)
    • Resigning or Being Separated From a Federal Agency for Medical Problems or Other Reasons (34)
    • SF 3112 Forms (10)
    • Specific Medical Conditions (28)
    • The Job of a Federal Disability Attorney (79)
    • Theory and Practice: Tips and Strategies for a Successful Application (202)
    • U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) (21)
    • U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (76)
    • U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Disability Retirement (36)
    • Uncategorized (377)
    • When the OPM Application Is Approved (13)
    • When the OPM Application Is Denied (88)
  • Past Blogs

  • Top Posts

    • FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Parting the Waters
    • Contact Us
    • About Me
    • FERS/SSDI Offsets: Major Precedent-setting Case
    • Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Failing to Act
    • Federal Disability Retirement: Restorative Sleep & a New Day
    • FERS Disability Retirement: Social Media Information
    • Postal & Federal Employee Disability Retirement: To Make the Argument
    • FERS Medical Retirement: Time to Enjoy, or Recover?
    • Federal Employee Medical and Disability Retirement: Changing Course

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Extensive Evidence

Posted on April 8, 2013 by Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

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

Filed under: Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM | Tagged: a good measure of credible proof to show you are disabled under fers/csrs laws, a process that requires proof and documentation, accepting opm disability clients all across america, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, common sense tips on the disability application and documentation, compiling medical evidence to support opm disability application, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, dangers about a voluminous fers disability package, document preparation and opm disability law, documentation for federal medical retirement, documentation proof during the federal disability retirement process, federal disability law blog, federal employment disability compensation report, FERS disability retirement, getting quality and substantial medical documentation, getting the right medical evidence to get your fers disability approved, importance of the narrative report on opm disability, insufficient medical documentation for OPM disability, making rational arguments along with sound medical evidence, medical evidence submitted to the opm for disability purposes, medical report from treating physicians for fers disability claim, medical reports in the OPM disability retirement application, medical reports to use in an opm disability claim, nationwide representation of federal employees, OPM disability retirement, opm medical documents, opm supportive medical documentation, owcp disability retirement, preponderance of the evidence documents, proof of disability for federal workers, representing federal employees from any us government agency, submitting a voluminous amount of medical documentation to the opm, sufficient medical evidence disability fers, the evidence you need to prove disability with the opm, USPS disability retirement, writing a successful personal narrative report | Leave a comment »

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Different Benefits

Posted on June 9, 2011 by Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

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

Filed under: Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM | Tagged: additional evidence to sustain your fers disability claim, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, civil service disability retirement, compiling additional supporting documentation, discerning what medical documentation to submit to the opm, documentation for medical retirement, documentation you can used from your ssdi claim, empirical evidence on opm disability claims, federal disability lawyer, FERS disability retirement, getting proof you mailed opm disability forms and documents, getting quality and substantial medical documentation, getting relevant medical documentation key in securing opm disability, including only relevant information on the fers disability claim, medical documentation as the linchpin of a fers disability claim, Medical Documentation for OPM Disability Retirement, medical documentation guidelines, medical evidence, medical evidence from the workers comp process, medical evidence submitted to the opm for disability purposes, medical evidence you can use in your workers comp or opm claim, objective medical evidence for federal disability cases, only relevant narrative and medical information in the standard form 3112, OPM disability retirement, opm medical documents, opm supportive medical documentation, owcp disability retirement really is usually meant "opm disability retirement", postal service disability retirement, preponderance of the evidence concept in fers disability law, preponderance of the evidence documents, supporting substantial medical evidence to OPM, the relevance of the owcp medical examination, USPS disability retirement | Leave a comment »

Early Retirement for Disabled Federal Workers: Essential Elements

Posted on January 11, 2011 by Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

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

Filed under: Clarifications of Laws or Rules | Tagged: additional evidence to sustain your fers disability claim, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, common tasks that the federal employee can't do to qualify for disability, condition that prevents to perform the essential functions, conditions that prevent performing the essential elements of your fed job, core functions of an existing federal position, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, deficiency in performance or attendance requirement, disability separation from postal employment, diseases or injuries that prevent useful and efficient service in your current federal position, Essential Elements of a Job Concept in OPM Disability Law, federal disability attorney, federal disability law blog, federal position duty that I can not do, FERS disability retirement, it's all about work disability and job performance, law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america, medical evidence submitted to the opm for disability purposes, medical evidence that you can not longer perform the essential tasks of a federal job, nationwide representation of federal employees, objective medical evidence for federal disability cases, obvious essential elements of the job not so obvious sometimes, opm disability and the not-so-obvious essential elements, opm disability law and the preponderance of evidence concept, OPM disability retirement, opm disability retirement and the federal employee job performance, OPM First Stage Disability Application, owcp disability retirement, Postal Service disability, preponderance of the evidence documents, representing federal employees from any us government agency, stating the obvious core functions of your current federal position, stating the obvious to an agency with selective reading comprehension problems, statutory requirements in OPM disability law, the medical condition and the essential elements of job connection, unsatisfactory performance ratings for injured federal employees, USPS disability retirement benefits, usps performance reviews can be used as disability evidence, when disabled federal employees get negative performance reviews | Leave a comment »

OPM Disability Retirement: Tools to Use

Posted on August 31, 2010 by Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

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

Filed under: Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM | Tagged: additional evidence to sustain your fers disability claim, being careful with the medical documentation you submit to opm, civil service disability, common sense tips on the disability application and documentation, compiling additional supporting documentation, disability retirement at the USPS, discretion with the opm in handling a federal disability reconsideration, discretionary decisions to submit a good opm disability claim, documentation for federal medical retirement, essential elements of jobs, examining all and each document submitted to the opm, federal agencies and secop doctors, federal disability law blog, federal disability retirement tools, federal employee disability, FERS disability retirement, FERS medical retirement, filing for OPM disability retirement, gathering medical documentation for an incapacitated federal employee, getting quality and substantial medical documentation, how an opm disability attorney must be able to make discretionary decisions, Medical Documentation for OPM Disability Retirement, medical documentation guidelines, medical evidence, medical evidence from the workers comp process, medical evidence submitted to the opm for disability purposes, more about the medical documentation in the fers disability application, nationwide representation of federal employees, OPM disability and VA ratings, opm medical documents, opm supportive medical documentation, owcp disability retirement, preponderance of the evidence documents, representing federal employees from any us government agency, resources for injured federal workers, selecting only the best medical documentation for the fers claim, strong and irrefutable medical evidence, supporting documentation regarding federal employee's medical condition, tools a disabled federal employee can use to prove his or her case, using medical documentation from the owcp, using secop reports in your fers disability claim, USPS disability retirement, usps medical documentation requirements, va disability ratings and opm disability retirement criteria, what documents should I turn over opm for my disability claim?, what medical documents to use in an opm disability application, what other medical documentation to use in fers disability retirement, when to use ratings information from the veterans administration, whether to use a va rating or not in the opm disability application | Leave a comment »

OPM Disability Retirement for Federal and Postal Employees: Causality

Posted on March 24, 2010 by Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

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

Filed under: Reflections of an OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer | Tagged: analyzing the opm denial letter, baseless denials by the opm reps, civil service disability, Common OPM Excuses for Federal Disability Denials, criteria for medical retirement, criteria of denial instead of criteria of disability in opm disability, criterias for disability retirement opm, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, David Hume, deficiencies of an OPM disability denial, disability retirement at the USPS, disability retirement for federal employees, examining the basis for the denial, excuses the opm disability specialist uses to deny disability benefits, federal disability attorney, federal disability law blog, federal workers disability criteria, FERS disability lawyer, FERS disability retirement, filing for OPM disability retirement, groundless reason for disability application denial, how much medical evidence I need to qualify for fers disability?, how to evaluate a denial of benefits from the opm, hume's problems of causation and causal truths, if the opm clerks pre-determines your claim denial, lack of objective medical evidence used to deny postal disability, legal representation for injured federal workers, making sense out of an opm disability retirement denial, medical evidence submitted to the opm for disability purposes, meeting the criteria of eligibility for csrs disability retirement, misstatements as basis for denial, nationwide representation of federal employees, opm and other disability programs and their eligibility criteria, OPM disability attorney, opm disability denial - no enough medical evidence?, OPM disability retirement, OPM First Stage Disability Application, OPM unreasonable denial, Postal disability retirement, postal service disability retirement, quoting common excuses the opm uses to justify denial of disability benefits, representing federal employees from any us government agency, representing federal employees in and outside the country, statutory criteria for eligibility for disability, the dreaded denial letter, USPS Disability, USPS disability retirement, when the OPM rejects medical evidence | Leave a comment »

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

Posted on December 8, 2009 by Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

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

Filed under: OPM Disability Actors - The Attorney, OPM Disability Process | Tagged: advice on the opm disability retirement paperwork and process, appeal to first OPM denial decision, appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, attorney experienced in dealing with fers disability retirement claims, best legal representation for disabled usps postal workers, Christmas Season, considering an attorney with experience before the mspb, CSRS disability lawyer, different opm stages might require different strategies, disability fers is a process not an automatic benefit, disability retirement for federal employees in il illinois, disability retirement opm should be seen as a "process" not just an "application", each level in the opm disability process, explain to me the federal disability application and process, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, federal disability application or federal disability process, federal disability attorney, federal disability law firm, federal disability retirement help for fl florida federal workers, FERS disability attorney, Initial Stage of the OPM disability process, insights to the opm proof-process, lawyer expert in Federal Disability Retirement law under FERS & CSRS, lawyer that knows the opm disability retirement process, legal representation for injured federal workers in ca california, medical evidence submitted to the opm for disability purposes, Merit Systems Protection Board Stage, michigan federal opm disability retirement, MSPB Third Stage, opm application and approval process, OPM denied my FERS disability claim, OPM disability appeal to the MSPB, OPM disability lawyer, opm disability retirement for ohio federal workers, OPM First Stage Disability Application, OPM Initial Stage, opm medical documents, OPM Reconsideration Stage, patience while waiting the opm to process disability approval, persuading an MSPB judge to grant you disability retirement, persuading an opm representative to rule in your favor, searching the internet to find the best available federal disability lawyer, Second Step OPM Appeal, the best expertise available in opm disability retirement, the best legal representation for opm disability, the complexity of the fers disability process, the first three stages of the opm disability process, the opm disability retirement decision-making process, the opm disability retirement process explained, The OPM MSPB and Federal Circuit steps, the postal disability process explained in 300 words, the top leading attorney in federal employee disability retirement, thinking process, top federal disability retirement attorney, understanding each stage of the OPM disability retirement process, Using an experienced Federal Lawyer to deal with an OPM denial, when opm disability retirement is denied, when the blind leading the blind, your priorities during the fers disability process | Leave a comment »

OPM Disability Retirement: Agency's Power

Posted on October 19, 2009 by Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

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

Filed under: OPM Disability Actors - The Agency, OPM Disability Application - SF 3112B Supervisor’s Statement for CSRS and FERS, OPM Disability Application - SF 3112D Agency Certification of Reassignment and Accommodation Efforts for CSRS and FERS | Tagged: "AWOL" for medical reasons, administrative actions against federal employee, adverse actions after rehab worker files for federal medical retirement, adverse actions while in OWCP, adverse agency reaction, agency actions against federal employee, agency hostility after federal disability application, agency's influence on the opm disability claim is limited, agency's influence versus power to grant opm disability, CSRS disability lawyer, disability retirement from the USPS, disability retirement usps, doctor supporting disability fers, doctor's statement for fers disability application, federal disability is not determined by agency that employs you, federal disability message boards, federal employee turning over medical evidence to the opm, FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement Blog, fers disability determination made by the opm not the agency, FERS disability retirement, FERS medical retirement, filling out an application form versus getting disability benefits, how to counter a negative influence of the agency in opm disability, if your agency will remove you for being unable to work, importance of the narrative report on opm disability, medical evidence submitted to the opm for disability purposes, medical retirement and usps, medical retirement from federal service, OPM disability attorney, opm disability determination, opm disability law and the preponderance of evidence concept, OPM disability retirement, opm disability: a form filling or a legal process?, opm sick leave, physician's statements in an OPM disability case, possible agency's reactions to your opm disability filing, postal service actions against the postal worker, Postal Service disability, reasonable medical determination, strong and irrefutable medical evidence, supporting substantial medical evidence to OPM, the most important requirement for opm disability retirement, usps disability benefits, USPS disability retirement, when the agency tries do whatever it can to deny opm benefits | Leave a comment »

Federal Disability Retirement: SSA Approval, Part III

Posted on July 29, 2008 by Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

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

Filed under: Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM, OPM Disability & SSA Social Security Disability Benefits | Tagged: argument by analogy, case law citation in federal disabilities cases, disability retirement benefits for air traffic controllers, examining the basis for approval of a ssa disability claim, federal disability attorney, federal disability retirement, federal government disability, federal workers comp lawyer, fers disability and social security disability insurance ssdi, FERS medical retirement, getting OPM disability benefits, idaho opm federal disability retirement, if the ssa's decision address the same medical condition, if you can use social security disability in your opm disability claim, injured postal worker, lawyer role in federal disability cases, legal & foundational argument, medical benefits for cftc employees, medical condition(s), medical evidence, medical evidence submitted to the opm for disability purposes, nationwide representation of federal employees, opm case-law decisions, OPM disability application tips and strategies, opm disability case-law rule about social security disability, OPM medical retirement, OPM's methodology, Post Office disability, postal and social security disability, postal service employee injury compensation claim, pragmatic methodology, precedent and analogy in opm law legal reasoning, Social Security and OPM disability relationship, statutory requirements in OPM disability law, the applicant's methodology, the opm must consider a ssa's decision if submitted, the ssa decision letter as an evidence of disability under fers csrs, us postal service disability retirement, usps disability benefits, when to use a SSA disability decision, when two disability applications are essentially identical | Leave a comment »

Federal Disability Retirement: SSA Approval, Part II

Posted on July 27, 2008 by Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

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

Filed under: Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM, Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted, Important Cases, Legal Updates and/or the Current Process Waiting Time, OPM Disability & SSA Social Security Disability Benefits | Tagged: additional evidence to sustain your fers disability claim, Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM, argument by analogy, attorney for US government employees, being careful with the medical documentation you submit to opm, case law citation in federal disabilities cases, civil service disability, civil service disability retirement, CSRS disability lawyer, disability retirement fers, disability retirement for federal employees, disability retirement laws under FERS & CSRS, documents you should not always submit to the opm, emphasizing quality in submitting opm medical records, federal disability law, federal employee turning over medical evidence to the opm, federal workers disability, FERS disability attorney, FERS disability lawyer, law firm for federal disability retirement, medical condition(s), medical evidence, medical evidence submitted to the opm for disability purposes, nationwide representation of federal employees, nexus between medical disability and job performance, OPM disability application tips, opm disability law firm, OPM disability lawyer, opm medical documents, opm supportive medical documentation, OPM's methodology, postal workers owcp rights attorney, pragmatic methodology, precedent and analogy in opm law legal reasoning, Social Security and OPM disability relationship, statutory requirements in OPM disability law, supporting substantial medical evidence to OPM, the applicant's methodology, the attorney's methodology, the opm must consider a ssa's decision if submitted, Trevan v. Office of Personnel Management, usps medical retirement, when to use a SSA disability decision, wyoming opm federal disability retirement | Leave a comment »

  • More on CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement

    • eZineArticles.com Article: The 1 Year Statute of Limitations
    • Federal Disability Retirement Laws, Medical Conditions, and the Intersecting Complications with OWCP, Social Security and FERS & CSRS
    • Federal Disability Retirement: The Full Arsenal of Weapons
    • FedSmith.com Article: Revisiting "Accommodation"
    • FedSmith.com Article: Sometimes the Process is just as important as the Substance of an Argument
    • Latest PostalReporter.com Article: Causation in a Federal Disability Retirement Case
    • Understanding the Complexities of the Law
    • USPS Disability Blog: The National Reassessment Program, the Agency and the Worker
  • Other Resources for Federal and Postal Employees

    • Articles Published in the Postal Reporter
    • FAQs on OPM Disability Retirement
    • FERS Disability Attorney Profile at Lawyers.com
    • Main Website on Federal Disability Retirement
    • OPM Disability Blog
    • The Postal Service Disability Retirement Blog
  • Seven False Myths about OPM Disability Retirement

    1) I have to be totally disabled to get Postal or Federal disability retirement.
    False: You are eligible for disability retirement so long as you are unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of your job.  Thus, it is a much lower standard of disability. 

    2) My injury or illness has to be job-related.
    False: You can get disability even if your condition is not work related.  If your medical condition impacts your ability to perform any of the core elements of your job, you are eligible, regardless of how or where your condition occurred.

    3) I have to quit my federal job first to get disability.
    False: In most cases, you can apply while continuing to work at your present job, to the extent you are able.  

    4) I can't get disability if I suffer from a mental or nervous condition.
    False: If your condition affects your job performance, you can still qualify. Psychiatric conditions are treated no differently from physical conditions.

    5) Disability retirement is approved by DOL Workers Comp.
    False: It's the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the federal agency that administers and approves disability for employees at the US Postal Service or other federal agencies.

    6) I can wait for OPM disability retirement for many years after separation.
    False: You only have one year from the date of separation from service - otherwise, you lose your right forever.

    7) If I get disability retirement, I won't be able to apply for Scheduled Award (SA).
    False: You can get a Scheduled Award under the rules of OWCP even after you get approved for OPM disability retirement.
  • Calendar

    February 2021
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28  
    « Jan    
  • Archives

    • February 2021 (21)
    • January 2021 (26)
    • December 2020 (28)
    • November 2020 (26)
    • October 2020 (27)
    • September 2020 (26)
    • August 2020 (26)
    • July 2020 (28)
    • June 2020 (26)
    • May 2020 (26)
    • April 2020 (26)
    • March 2020 (26)
    • February 2020 (25)
    • January 2020 (27)
    • December 2019 (28)
    • November 2019 (27)
    • October 2019 (27)
    • September 2019 (25)
    • August 2019 (27)
    • July 2019 (28)
    • June 2019 (23)
    • May 2019 (27)
    • April 2019 (26)
    • March 2019 (26)
    • February 2019 (24)
    • January 2019 (28)
    • December 2018 (27)
    • November 2018 (27)
    • October 2018 (27)
    • September 2018 (25)
    • August 2018 (27)
    • July 2018 (27)
    • June 2018 (26)
    • May 2018 (27)
    • April 2018 (22)
    • March 2018 (26)
    • February 2018 (24)
    • January 2018 (27)
    • December 2017 (26)
    • November 2017 (27)
    • October 2017 (26)
    • September 2017 (26)
    • August 2017 (27)
    • July 2017 (26)
    • June 2017 (26)
    • May 2017 (28)
    • April 2017 (25)
    • March 2017 (27)
    • February 2017 (24)
    • January 2017 (26)
    • December 2016 (29)
    • November 2016 (26)
    • October 2016 (26)
    • September 2016 (26)
    • August 2016 (27)
    • July 2016 (26)
    • June 2016 (26)
    • May 2016 (28)
    • April 2016 (26)
    • March 2016 (27)
    • February 2016 (25)
    • January 2016 (26)
    • December 2015 (25)
    • November 2015 (24)
    • October 2015 (27)
    • September 2015 (25)
    • August 2015 (26)
    • July 2015 (28)
    • June 2015 (26)
    • May 2015 (25)
    • April 2015 (25)
    • March 2015 (26)
    • February 2015 (22)
    • January 2015 (26)
    • December 2014 (27)
    • November 2014 (22)
    • October 2014 (26)
    • September 2014 (26)
    • August 2014 (26)
    • July 2014 (27)
    • June 2014 (25)
    • May 2014 (26)
    • April 2014 (26)
    • March 2014 (26)
    • February 2014 (24)
    • January 2014 (27)
    • December 2013 (25)
    • November 2013 (25)
    • October 2013 (26)
    • September 2013 (26)
    • August 2013 (27)
    • July 2013 (27)
    • June 2013 (25)
    • May 2013 (27)
    • April 2013 (26)
    • March 2013 (26)
    • February 2013 (24)
    • January 2013 (26)
    • December 2012 (26)
    • November 2012 (25)
    • October 2012 (26)
    • September 2012 (23)
    • August 2012 (27)
    • July 2012 (22)
    • June 2012 (26)
    • May 2012 (24)
    • April 2012 (25)
    • March 2012 (25)
    • February 2012 (25)
    • January 2012 (25)
    • December 2011 (26)
    • November 2011 (24)
    • October 2011 (26)
    • September 2011 (25)
    • August 2011 (27)
    • July 2011 (25)
    • June 2011 (26)
    • May 2011 (25)
    • April 2011 (25)
    • March 2011 (27)
    • February 2011 (22)
    • January 2011 (23)
    • December 2010 (25)
    • November 2010 (23)
    • October 2010 (25)
    • September 2010 (24)
    • August 2010 (25)
    • July 2010 (28)
    • June 2010 (26)
    • May 2010 (29)
    • April 2010 (30)
    • March 2010 (26)
    • February 2010 (22)
    • January 2010 (23)
    • December 2009 (20)
    • November 2009 (19)
    • October 2009 (22)
    • September 2009 (18)
    • August 2009 (18)
    • July 2009 (23)
    • June 2009 (18)
    • May 2009 (11)
    • April 2009 (11)
    • March 2009 (14)
    • February 2009 (10)
    • January 2009 (10)
    • December 2008 (8)
    • November 2008 (8)
    • October 2008 (6)
    • September 2008 (4)
    • August 2008 (9)
    • July 2008 (8)
    • June 2008 (6)
    • May 2008 (18)
    • April 2008 (20)
    • March 2008 (31)

Blog at WordPress.com. WP Designer.