Medical Retirement (for US Federal Employees): Administering Treatment versus Administrative Functions

Doctors rarely have any problems with administering treatment based upon clinical encounters and subjective narratives from their patients; yet, when it comes to providing a medical report and performing similar administrative functions, the sudden pause, hesitation, and sometimes outright refusal, is rather puzzling, if not disconcerting.

Such trepidation from the doctor can obviously result in a difficult wall for purposes of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS.

For, much of medical evaluation, diagnosis, prognosis and prescribing of treatment encompasses receipt of subjective responses from the patient:  where the pain is present; the nature and extent of the pain; the history and chronicity of manifested symptoms; even functional capacity evaluations must necessarily be an observation of the subjective actions & reactions of the participant.  Of course, there are often distinguishable “objective” factors — swelling; carcinogenic versus benign tumors; broken bones, etc.

On the other hand, even MRIs and other diagnostic tools reveal only that X exists — not that X results in symptom Y.  An example would be a bulging disc — while the abnormality itself may show up on an MRI, whether the individual experiences any pain from the abnormality may differ from subject to subject.

This is why, despite the willingness of a doctor to treat based upon most factors being “subjective” in nature, it becomes a puzzle why the same doctor shows an unwillingness to write a report stating that, because of the medical conditions for which patient M is being treated, one must necessarily conclude that he or she cannot perform essential elements X, Y and Z of his or her job.

It is the jump from treatment-to-disability-determination which is often problematic for the treating doctor.  All of a sudden, the excuses flow:  “I am not trained to make such determinations”; “There is no objective basis for your pain” (then why have you been treating me for over a decade and prescribing high levels of narcotic pain medications?); “I can’t say whether you can or cannot do your job”; and many other excuses.

The switch from administering treatment, to treating administrative matters, is one fraught with potential obstacles.  How one approaches the treating doctor will often determine whether such obstacles can be overcome — and whether one’s Federal Disability Retirement application can be successfully formulated.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: Medical v. Legal

Issues concerning Federal Disability Retirement applications under FERS or CSRS, both for Federal and Postal employees, rarely “conflict” with the goal of obtaining the proper medical care for a medical condition which one suffers from.  First and foremost, one should seek to obtain the proper medical care, and undergo all of the appropriate treatment modalities necessary to take care of the medical condition. 

If that medical condition — despite treatment, intervention, medication regimens, etc. — fails to allow for recovery sufficient to return to a level of functionality such that the Federal or Postal Worker can continue to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job, then one should certainly consider preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS. 

Throughout the process, however, the primary focus should always be upon obtaining the proper medical care.  Logically, the Merit Systems Protection Board has held in various Federal Disability Retirement cases that where such treatment modalities as a medication regimen has been refused, then such refusal may be a basis for denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  Why would this be?  The reasoning is that there is an intervening cause for the continuation of the medical condition which prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job — not the medical condition, but rather the refusal to follow a prescribed course of medical treatment. 

Sometimes, however, failing to follow a prescribed medication regimen may not be an outright “refusal”, but rather a recognition on the part of the Federal or Postal employee that taking such medications while working will further impede one’s ability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.  This is where an intersection between the Medical and the Legal can “conflict”.  The best thing to do in such a circumstance, of course, is to consult with the treating doctor and explain the potential conflict.  There may be no resolution, but it is always best to have such attempts annotated so that it can be “proven” later on, if needed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Office Notes (Continued…)

The Office of Personnel Management has every right to establish a consistency of medical treatment and opinions rendered on the part of the doctor, the specialist, the medical facility, etc.  One of the reasons why Federal Disability Retirement benefits are (in great part) determined by the opinion of the “treating doctor”, as opposed to a determination made by a medical doctor who makes such disability determinations but is not the applicant’s “treating doctor”, is that such a determination (in the eyes of Federal Disability Retirement laws, statutes, MSPB case laws, etc.) can best be rendered by a medical specialist who has a long-standing relationship with the patient/applicant, over a long period of time, to determine the extent, severity, chronicity, etc., of the medical condition claimed.  

With this in mind, there often arises a conflict of sorts:  On the one hand, most people who are attending to their medical needs, are not thinking in terms of “getting Federal Disability Retirement benefits” during the time of treatment.  The critical point of when the line becomes drawn, where treatment & chronicity begin to conflict; or where, despite every attempt by the doctor to prescribe treatment modalities, there appears to be a medical condition which is “intractable”, is often a difficult one to determine.  In most cases, the office/treatment notes will reveal the line, which may come about gradually.  At other times, one may have a doctor who thinks that he or she can successfully treat any and all conditions, and reflects such a “positive” outlook in every office notation.  This is often not helpful, when it comes time to filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.  To counter this, a frank discussion with the doctor at some point may become necessary.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: Office Notes

The Office of Personnel Management will often request that a doctor’s “office” or “treatment” notes be attached for approximately the last 1 – 2 years.  What is the purpose of this request?  Normally, to compare whether or not the doctor’s treatment notes reveal the consistency with what is stated in the narrative report prepared by the doctor.  This is often unfair, of course, because the purpose of office notes is quite different from the purpose behind a narrative report requested to support a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.  

Office notes often reflect a cursory overview of the type of treatment rendered, and will sometimes contain statements of the positive advances and treatment responses of the patient/applicant, including any progress made in response to therapy, surgery, treatment, and medication regimens.  Thus, statements such as, “patient is showing good progress” or “Patient comes in today feeling much better” may be used by the Office of Personnel Management to deny a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, and yet such statements must always be seen within the context of treatment, and in no way are inconsistent with a medical narrative report which clearly and unequivocally shows that a Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.  Next:  How to overcome OPM’s unwarranted focus upon the Office/Treatment notes.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Confirming the Relationship

After undergoing all of the those diagnostic tests; after allowing the doctor to clinically examine, prescribe multiple medications based merely upon the say-so of the doctor; after allowing for invasive surgery; sending you to physical therapy; if the time then comes to prepare and file a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, it is important to confirm the real strength of that “patient-doctor” relationship that has apparently been ongoing and fostered for those many months, years, and sometimes, decades.

It is not enough to get a nebulous “pat-on-the-back-sure-I’ll-support-you” sort of response, and with that, you receive a thick packet from the medical office, you open it, and inside is merely a copy of your medical records.  No — “support” must be concrete and definitive. It must mean, specifically, that the doctor is willing to write an excellent medical report outlining his or her opinion in connecting your medical condition with you inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of your job.  If it is time to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, it is time to have a heart-to-heart talk with the treating doctor, and see how committed he or she really was and is to this “patient-doctor” relationship.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Failing to Follow “Reasonable Treatment”

In fighting to prove one’s eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, a recurring argument which the Office of Personnel Management often alleges is that an applicant failed to follow the treatment recommendations of the treating doctor.

Such an argument can prove to be fatal to an applicant’s case, but it is good to know the parameters of what it means to “fail to follow” reasonable medical treatment.  For instance, non-compliance with a medication regimen can be fatal to a case.  Thus, OPM will successfully argue that an individual who has failed to follow the medication regimen of the treating doctor has thus failed to show that the individual could have returned to work precisely because non-compliance with a medication regimen would logically undermine the potential efficacy of the medical treatment.

On the other hand, invasive surgery is normally not required, and the Merit Systems Protection Board has stated that an “estimated probability of success of future surgery is speculative, just as a prediction as to the worsening of a condition may be, and will not necessarily provide a basis for denial of a disability annuity.”

These are two light-posts on the spectrum of what is deemed “reasonable treatment”.  Most issues concerning reasonable medical treatment fall somewhere between these two extremes, and the best course of action (obviously) is never to self-treat, or make medical decisions without the input of your treating doctor.  Indeed, to not follow the medication regimen of your doctor is a manner of self-treatment; on the other hand, to elect not to have surgery because of the speculative success/failure rate is a reasonable decision which the Merit Systems Protection Board will not second-guess.  What falls in-between these two extremes should always be with the guidance of “reasonableness”, in close consultation with your treating doctor.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire