OPM Medical Retirement Attorney: Formulating the Effective Case

Is it inherently presupposed that a case to be formulated is one which should be “effective”?  By the insertion of that term, of course, it immediately implies a retrospective vantage point — an “ends” to “means” view of an outcome-based approach.

If a Federal or Postal employee who files for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, receives a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, one assumes that the case was not “effectively” formulated.  On the other hand, if an approval is received from OPM, one need not consider any such issue, but merely moves on to the “when” phase — as in, “When am I going to get paid“?

Outcome-based formulation of a case is never an unwise approach; but the mere fact that a denial is issued by OPM after reviewing a given Federal Disability Retirement application, does not mean that the case itself was not originally “effective” in the formulation and submission.

There are OPM “administrative specialists” who systematically deny cases; certain others who require a higher standard of proof beyond what the law mandates; and even those who extrapolate clear evidence in a denial which establishes eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement, but nevertheless concludes with a disapproval.  Such arbitrary outcomes may seem unfair and unwarranted, but it is a reality which must be faced.

In light of this, the positive outlook to embrace is the fact that Federal OPM Disability Retirement is an administrative process with multiple stages for appeals and additional bites at the proverbial apple.  From the outset, it is always a good idea to carefully prepare, formulate and file an “effective” case; but the mere fact that the first attempt fails to achieve the outcome desired, does not diminish or extinguish the positive assessment reached at the outset when first the Federal Disability Retirement packet was submitted; rather, it just means that additional proof and evidentiary addendum must be forthcoming to satisfy the bureaucratic process of further effectuating the efficacy of an already-effective case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Pros and Cons

Federal employees and Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the seriousness of the medical condition begins to impact the ability and capacity to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, must take a pragmatic, blunt assessment of one’s future — taking into account all of the factors necessary in order to make a proper decision.

For, in the end, the choices are starkly limited: Stay at one’s job (often not even a real choice, given that the medical condition and its impact upon one’s ability to perform the essential elements of one’s job has forced the question itself to be asked); resign and walk away with nothing, with a deferred retirement at age 65 (again, not a realistic choice, and one which should not be considered, but in the universe of options, it is the non-choice of choices); file for Federal Disability Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (this is, obviously, the most viable of the three alternatives).

One can weigh the pros and cons of filing or not filing: the daunting administrative and bureaucratic process which must be faced; the potential for reduced income; the loss of camaraderie enjoyed for these many years; the cutting short of projects and mission essentials labored upon for so long; and a multitude of similar changes. But in the end, all pros and cons must face in the same direction, and point to the inevitable game-changer: one’s medical condition, and the impact which it has upon one’s ability, inability, capacity, or lack thereof, in performing all of the essential elements of one’s job.

At the North Pole, all directions point south; for the injured Federal employee or the Postal worker with a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, the compass pointing to the need to file for Federal Medical Retirement is the direction mandated by circumstances, and not necessarily by whether the pros win out over the cons.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire