OPM Medical Retirement: Days of Sisyphean Drudgery

The Myth of Sisyphus is well known, both because of the philosophical essay written by Camus, as well as through the Greek mythological narrative of the condemned figure to toil in endless meaninglessness, by rolling the boulder up the hill, only to watch it go down, and to repeat the process all over again.

For Camus and the existentialist viewpoint, it is in the very act of absurdity itself that meaning and significance can be derived; for the Greek citizen of yesteryear, it was perhaps the circularity of the human condition which provided for relevance in the telling of the myth. In either extrapolation, the powerful and profound story provides for an image of consequence in this modern age of technological overload, where causes are no longer believed in, customs no longer adhered to blindly, and social constraints no longer attached by meaningful obedience.

The absurdity of daily toil has come to a fruition point, where the great expanse of information in the age of the internet now destroys any definitional meaning, either in words, relationships, or for lives and livelihoods.  Crisis points often infuse momentary meaning in meaningless and mindless midpoints; and so, at the pinnacle of balance, just as the boulder meets the midpoint of the hill and balances for a millisecond upon the hill before “deciding” to roll forward, the point of reflective relevance engulfs Sisyphus within a frozen moment of infinity.

Medical conditions often have a similar effect and impact upon a life; for, in the turmoil of trauma, one asks those reflective questions as to the mundane:  what does it all mean?  What is the point?  But perhaps such questions of eternal queries last only for a brief moment in time, before pain, fear, angst and anxiety overtake; and in this physical world where materialism and the scientific narrative prevails and predominates, getting beyond pain and through the day, only to experience insomnia and unsolicited loss of solace is not enough to attain a meaningful existence.

Are there solutions?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, there is a likening of the work performed with the Sisyphean plight of the Greek mythological figure:  the greater bureaucracy representing the scene of turmoil; the medical condition representing the task itself; and the heroic feats of the meaningless in the context of the greater significance of life, surviving medical conditions and getting beyond pain, despondency, depression and anxiety, and the exit one attempts to find in order to escape from such a condition, leads one to that moment of absurdity and balance of the boulder at the pinnacle of the hill.

For the Federal employee and the Postal worker, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, is a way to attain a level of restorative capacity in order to escape the vicious circularity of the toil which only further exacerbates one’s medical condition.

While never the answer to all, obtaining OPM Disability Retirement benefits allows for one to move forward, and to progress beyond the absurd.  Otherwise, the disabled Federal employee or the injured U.S. Postal Worker may find him or herself caught in the web of another narrative put forth by another well-known existentialist philosopher, entitled, No Exit.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Retirement: Further SSDI Considerations

In filing for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement under FERS, one must, of course, file for SSDI.  Whether you want to pursue SSDI aggressively or not, depends upon what one’s future plans will be.  Remember that you can make (in addition to the disability annuity paid) up to 80% of what one’s former Federal or Postal job currently pays. 

Thus, take the following hypothetical:  An individual makes $60,000.00 per year, and files for Disability Retirement under FERS.  In the first year, the individual’s annuity would be $36,000; and every year thereafter, it would be $24,000.00.  On top of that annuity amount, however, the former Federal or Postal employee could go out and become employed, and make up to $48,000.00 per year at another job, on top of the $24,000.00 in disability annuity, for a combined income of $72,000.00. 

Now, some might be critical of the fact that under the rules governing OPM Disability Retirement, one can actually make more total income — 120% — than before becoming qualified for FERS Disability Retirement.  Some have called this a “windfall”.  Instead, one should look at it this way:  it is a thoughtful paradigm, because the system encourages a person to become productive in some other capacity.  Moreover, that person further contributes to the system which he or she left, by paying Federal taxes through the “other” employment.  Incentives work, and in this case, it makes economic sense for both the Federal government and for the disabled former federal or postal employee.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Considerations Prior to Pursuing SSDI Aggressively

In filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, one must file for SSDI and submit proof of such filing with the Office of Personnel Management at the time of approval of the Federal Disability Retirement application.  For CSRS individuals who file for Federal Disability Retirement, no such filing is required, precisely because the framework of a CSRS retirement/disability retirement is not tied into the Social Security system. 

Remember that, under FERS, when a Federal or Postal Worker files for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, all that is necessary is to fulfill the requirement of “filing” — meaning, that a receipt must be submitted evidencing the filing of an SSDI application.  One does not need an approval or a denial — merely a receipt showing that one has fulfilled the statutory requirement of filing.  Ultimately, of course, the Office of Personnel Management is seeking to discover whether or not the Federal or Postal worker is eligible for SSDI, and if so, that an offset will be triggered.  Because of the possible offset (and the potential repercussions of OPM refusing to reinstate the full FERS Disability Retirement benefits in the event of an SSDI/FERS disability retirement annuitant having reached a status of gainful employment — see my previous blog post), one needs to take into consideration all of the factors, circumstances, future goals and future plans, before one decides to “aggressively” pursue SSDI benefits.  

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Retirement: SSDI & FERS Offset (Continued…)

If a former Federal or Postal employee receives both FERS Disability Retirement annuity, as well as SSDI (with the proper offset), and finds a job, makes sufficient income to exceed the cap for SSDI — to the extent that Social Security finds that he or she is no longer “entitled” to SSDI benefits and suspends SSDI payments:  will the Office of Personnel Management recalculate the FERS Disability Retirement and reinstate the amount which was previously offset, to restore the full FERS Disability Retirement annuity?  The answer:  A number of recent cases have resulted in a “No”.  Petitions and Appeals are in the works. 

The reasoning and rationale of the Office of Personnel Management is that, because the individual is still “entitled” to SSDI benefits, but the benefits have merely been “suspended”, therefore the FERS Disability Retirement annuity is still offset by the “entitled” amount, not by what is actually received.  Pending the outcome of any Petitions for Review and Appeals to the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Federal and Postal Disability Retirement annuitants must be careful in deciding whether or not to actually pursue SSDI.  If one is planning to work at another job, with a reasonable expectation of exceeding Social Security’s cap for employment income, the fact that if one is restored to earning capacity, one’s FERS Disability Retirement may not be allowed to be recalculated to make up for the lost offset, should be taken into consideration.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS Disability Retirement: SSDI & FERS Offset

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement annuitants under FERS were required to file for SSDI as part of the process.  Most Federal and Postal employees who filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, never obtain an approval for SSDI.  This is natural, of course, and is part of the overall “framework” of the interaction between FERS Disability Retirement benefits and SSDI.  FERS Disability Retirement (as well as CSRS Disability Retirement) encourages Federal and Postal Workers to become employed in the private sector, and to become “productive” (translation:  continue to pay more taxes) in some other area of employment. 

Because Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS does not pay a great amount (60% of the average of one’s highest three consecutive years the first year under FERS, and 40% thereafter; a different computation methodology for CSRS employees, who are becoming rarer each year), the paradigm and plan of the Federal payment system for Disability Retirement annuitants had an implicit public policy approach of “encouraging” all such annuitants to find other employment.  Unless, of course, in addition to the FERS Disability Retirement annuity, one became entitled to SSDI payments, in which case the “cap” for income from other employment becomes much, much lower.  Many considerations should be thoughtfully approached when filing for SSDI, including plans for future employment.  Otherwise, some problems may be encountered if the annuitant receives both FERS Disability Retirement benefits, SSDI, and exceeds the cap from other employment.  More to Follow.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability: Perennial Issues

Like perennial plants, some issues continue to repeatedly crop up; once planted, they keep showing up in various question-forms.  The one which needs to be addressed, again, is the “1-year” issue:  there are actually two (2) questions which keep resurrecting themselves: A.  Filing a disability retirement application within 1 year of separation from service, and B. A medical condition which must last for a minimum of one year. 

As to the former:  The statute of limitations begins to toll when a person has been officially separated from Federal Service.  This means that the Agency must take you off of the Federal rolls.  If you continue to receive a paycheck, you are likely not separated (unless, of course, it is some form of a severance paycheck); if you receive a paycheck with “0-balances”, you are still not likely separated. If you are injured and you haven’t worked for a year, but you have not received notification that you have been separated from Federal Service, the 1-year mark has likely not begun.  On the other hand, if your SF-50 or PS Form 50 states that you are separated, then you are separated.  At that point, you have one (1) year to file your Federal Disability Retirement application. 

As to the latter (Issue “B” herein):  In most cases, it is a prospective issue.  It doesn’t mean that you must “have been” medically unable to work for a year; it doesn’t mean that you have to wait around for a year, out of work and penniless, for a year; it doesn’t mean that you must be on OWCP or on LWOP or on sick leave for a year — instead, it means that your medical condition must last for at least a year.  In other words, as is the case with most medical conditions, after a couple of months, your doctor should have an opinion — a “prognosis” — of how long your medical condition which impacts your ability to perform the essential elements of your job, will likely last, within reasonable medical certainty.  Indeed, since the Federal Disability Retirement process often takes from 8 – 10 months (from start to finish) to obtain an approval, by the end of the process, the full year will likely have occurred anyway.  In other words, you don’t need to wait around for a year to show that you can’t perform the essential elements of your job; indeed, that would be foolish. 

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The Lawless Supervisor

Every now and then (or perhaps more often than we like to think) a Supervisor will fill out the SF 3112B (Supervisor’s Statement) with such venom and innuendo and half-truths, as to make the disability retirement applicant out to be John Gotti’s half-brother and reincarnate of the conceptual paradigm of the greatest incompetent the Federal Government has ever seen (next to the Supervisor himself, of course). Or, it will state that the applicant has been “under investigation”, or that he/she has “mislead” the Agency, or other such half-truth, unsubstantiated allegation. The problem in addressing such a Supervisor’s Statement with the Office of Personnel Management (if, in fact, one has the opportunity to address the issue before it gets to OPM or, as is more often the case, if the disability retirement application is denied, and the Supervisor’s Statement is referenced in the initial decision of denial), is the following: If you address it too forcefully, or emphasize it, then you are in danger of focusing the “fight” on the truth or falsity of what the Supervisor has said. In other words, you have essentially allowed the Supervisor to win the fight by shifting your focus upon the venom of the Supervisor. It is more likely the wiser course of action to grant minimal attention to the Supervisor’s Statement; give it the due response it deserves, addressing the falsity of the statement, and how it is entirely unsubstantiated; and, sometimes, express outrage that OPM would have even considered such scandalous charges when it has been unverified; then focus most of the attention upon the validity and force of the Medical Narrative Report that accompanies the disability retirement application. For, after all, always remember that this is a “Medical Disability Retirement Application” — with the emphasis upon “medical”, and not “Supervisor”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Psychology of the Process

There is, of course, the “psychology” of the process of filing for disability retirement benefits. The term itself (psychology, psychological) is all too often misused. All that is meant in this context is that, at each stage of the process (the initial application stage; the Second, Reconsideration Stage; the Third, Merit Systems Protection Board Stage; the fourth & fifth stages of an appeal, either for a Petition for Full Review or an appeal to the Federal Circuit, or sequentially), the applicant should have a general idea of the level of people the Applicant is dealing with. Thus, for example, at the initial stage of the process, one should not expect the OPM Representative to be fully conversant in the law; whereas, if the case gets to the Merit Systems Protection Board Stage, the OPM representative is fairly well-versed in multiple aspects of the laws governing disability retirement. Additionally, the level of medical knowledge varies from one OPM representative to the next. This is not to say that each stage of the process requires a greater level of intellectual input or information; nor does it mean that each stage should be “tailored” based upon the expected level of competence. Rather, an awareness of what to expect, how to respond, and what level of intellectual responsiveness are all necessary ingredients in preparing and filing a successful disability retirement application. In short, it is important to know the “psychology” of it all.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The Complexity of the Simple

Federal disability retirement law, the statutes and regulations which govern eligibility; the multiple case-law opinions from Administrative Judges and Federal Circuit Judges interpreting the governing statutes and regulations; the lawyers who argue different aspects and attempt to “fine-tune” existing law (including this lawyer) — the entirety results in “making complex” that which was essentially simple.

There is an old adage that the King who declared the first law of his Kingdom was really attempting to reduce the unemployment figures by creating the need for lawyers. Indeed, “the law” is often made more complex by lawyers. However, while the multiple issues governing Federal disability retirement law under FERS & CSRS may appear, at first glance, “simple”, it is such simplicity which engenders the complex, precisely because laws which reflect a simple conceptual paradigm require extensive interpretation in order to explain the simpleness of the simplicity. That is why law itself is complex. Don’t let the complex confluse you. As you prepare a disability retirement application, recognize that it is a complex process; at the same time, make sure to explain your medical condition and how it impacts your ability to perform the essential elements of your Federal or Postal position in an easy-going, simple and straightforward manner. Don’t make it complex; keep it simple; but recognize the complexities.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire