OPM Accepted Disabling Conditions: Suicidal Ideations

It is perhaps the final vestige of societal taboo; for, at what point the human animal realized that self-destruction became an option is open for debate.  In the Animal Kingdom, it is rare to find species openly seeking to end life; the struggle to survive and the Darwinian inherency for self-preservation and survival remains as vibrant as ever.

Being diagnosed with “suicidal ideation” is normally associated with psychiatric conditions of Major Depression and Generalized Anxiety, where the acceptable level of stress-tolerance exceeds the capacity to withstand.  Each individual is a unique creature; in this cookie-cutting mold of society where people get lost in the importance of position, fame, accolades and a false sense of admiration, it becomes commonplace to question one’s sense of worth and value.

Psychiatry has never been a perfect science; some even question the validity of its approach, as it has now become overwhelmingly a pharmacological event, with some semblance of therapeutic intervention thrown in as an afterthought.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service workers who are contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or even CSRS Offset, the existence of suicidal ideations (or otherwise simply known as “having suicidal thoughts”) is often lost in the compendium of diagnosed psychiatric conditions, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), where a significant event has intervened which has resulted in traumatic reverberations in one’s life; Anxiety (or more officially identified as Generalized Anxiety Disorder); Major Depression; Bipolar Disorder, with spectrum symptoms of manic phases and depressive states; as well as schizophrenia and paranoia.

For relevance to filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, the existence of suicidal ideations is often one more indicia of the seriousness of the diagnosed psychiatric conditions, but should never be determinative in whether one’s psychiatric condition is “serious enough” in order to be eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  Indeed, there are many, many Federal and Postal employees who file for OPM Disability Retirement benefits, who suffer from Major Depression, Anxiety, PTSD and other forms of psychiatric conditions, without ever suffering from suicidal ideations, and yet are fully qualified for, and become entitled to, Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Further, as Federal Disability Retirement is based upon the algorithm of showing the nexus between one’s medical condition and the positional requirements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the impeding aspect of suicidal ideations may be negligible.  Rather, from a medical standpoint, it is one more factor of concern and consternation within a long list of diagnoses and symptoms which cumulatively form the basis for an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Psychiatric Disabilities — Origin versus Situational

While the issue concerning “situational disability” has been previously discussed and written about in my various blogs and articles, it is helpful to keep in mind certain conceptual distinctions when preparing to file for Federal or Postal Disability retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.  

The concept normally applies to psychiatric disabilities, and specifically to two major areas:  Major Depression and Anxiety.  The paradigm of such a case often involves a Federal or Postal worker who has had some difficulties, conflict with, harassment by, etc., a supervisor or coworker within the agency. The Federal or Postal worker begins to manifest symptoms of anxiety, depression, panic attacks, etc.  An EEO Complaint is filed; a grievance is filed; perhaps, several such alternative venues of legal processes are utilized.  Despite fighting back, the hostile work situation fails to resolve itself.  More importantly, the psychiatric medical condition continues to worsen.  

Does this simple hypothetical constitute a basis for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, or is it precluded by the legal preclusion of “situational disability”?  As with all generic paradigms, the answer is:  It all depends.  

One must look at the chronicity of the psychiatric medical condition; whether the symptoms pervade all aspects of the life of the Federal or Postal Worker; to what extent the psychiatric medical conditions impact his or her ability to perform the essential elements of the job; and to what extent the Federal or Postal worker can perform such a job in a different environment.  It is in the details of the conceptual distinctions made, which determine the course of viability in filing for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: Is there a higher standard of proof for Psychiatric Disabilities?

I am attempting to address the issue of Psychiatric medical disabilities in the context of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS & CSRS, by addressing the issue from various perspectives and angles, in an effort to inform the reader in different ways.  Major Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, panic attacks, Bipolar Disorder — each possess unique traits, characteristics, and symptomatologies and manifestations exhibited in ways specific to the psychiatric condition. 

What is often the case is that, while the Psychiatrist is the medical doctor who is the “expert” on the Psychiatric condition, it is often the psychologist (the “Ph.D”), the Therapist, the Licensed Clinical Social Worker, etc. who has the “personalized” knowledge of the patient, who can provide the descriptive emotional impact, and the specific adjectives which can properly be formulated to reveal and “prove” the impact upon one’s inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job. 

Often, the Psychiatrist is merely the “medication manager” — the prescriber of the psychotropic medications.  Thus, in proving a Federal Disability Retirement case by a preponderance of the evidence, it is often necessary to have both the Therapist, as well as the Psychiatrist, in a joint effort to meet the standard of proof.  Is there a higher standard of proof in a Psychiatric medical condition?  To some extent, the answer is yes — but this is only natural, inasmuch as it requires “more” to have people fully understand the nature, extent, and impact of what it means to have a psychiatric medical condition.  For, at its very essence, who among us can truly understand what it means to be overwhelmed by a psychiatric medical condition?  Only words — descriptive adjectives and emotive-concepts, can draw us closer to having at least some rudimentary understanding.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Remember the Details

At each state of attempting to get a Federal disability retirement application approved, it is important to “remember the details”. For example, at the Merit Systems Protection Board level, in conducting a Hearing, remember that if the best medical evidence/testimony you are able to provide is through a health professional other than an “M.D.” (e.g., a therapist, a Nurse Practitioner, a Chiropractor, etc.), always point out the unique credentials of the provider, to include whether in the particular state in which he/she practices, if greater latitude and responsibilities are given to the practitioner.

Thus, it may be that in one state a Nurse Practitioner can exam, diagnose, and prescribe a medication regimen without the direct oversight of a medical doctor, whereas in other states such latitude may not be allowed. This should be pointed out to the Judge, to emphasize greater credibility of the testimony of the practitioner. Further, remember that in Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, November, 2007), the Court therein reiterated that the medical documentation/evidence required must come from a ‘licensed physician or other appropriate practitioner’, and so long as that medical practitioner utilizes “established diagnostic criteria” and that which is “consistent with generally accepted professional standards”, the testimony cannot be undermined. Use the strengths of the case you have, and emphasize the little details that matter.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Summary Legal Update for FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement

On my website, Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer, I give a more extensive explanation of a recent and important case impacting federal disability retirement applications, but I think that it is important for everyone filing, or contemplating filing, for disability retirement under FERS or CSRS, to be aware of the recent United States Court of Appeals case for the Federal Circuit, Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, #2006-3260, decided on November 26, 2007, in which it was found that OPM’s adherence to the rule that they will refuse to “consider such medical evidence…for being ‘purely subjective’ is a critical legal error…and clearly prejudicial.”

Often, in cases involving cognitive impairment, psychiatric disabilities, disabilities involving diffuse and chronic pain, and those conditions such as Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue, etc. the Federal Circuit Court in Vanieken-Ryals has essentially held that OPM’s adherence to “objective evidence” is “unsupported in the law, was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.”

The Judge therein stated that OPM must consider the medical evidence that is submitted, and cannot attack a medical condition unless there is a doubt as to the “credentials or veracity [of the doctor],” and this is especially true where the doctor has “utilized established diagnostic criteria and [is] consistent with ‘generally accepted professional standards’ ” of medical practice.

This is an important case for Federal disability retirement applicants to use when filing for psychiatric medical disabilities, and for those “hard to define” cases (again, e.g., Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, etc.), because OPM will often declare as a basis for denial that the applicant lacked “objective medical evidence” or that there was no “objective diagnostic tests” showing the medical condition. This is, to use a very well-know legal term, now considered “baloney”. As long as the doctor has applied established diagnostic criteria and generally accepted professional standards, unless OPM can attack the credentials of the doctor, they must consider the medical evidence.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Important Cases Which Impact Disability Retirement Applications

The recent case of Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, decided on November 26, 2007, cannot be overemphasized for its importance to the disability retirement process. It is, in my view, a landmark case which will greatly advance potential disability retirement applicants who base their disabilities upon psychiatric conditions. In representing my clients, I have repeatedly argued that the Office of Personnel Management’s insistence upon “objective medical evidence”, especially when it involves clients who suffer from psychiatric medical conditions (e.g., Major Depression, Anxiety, panic attacks, Bi-Polar Disorder, etc.) is not only unfair, but irrational. My past arguments were met with varying degrees of success, but the essential argument that I made over the years went something like this: Psychiatric disabilities by their inherent nature are “subjective”, because there is no diagnostic test which can objectively determine symptoms of psychiatric disabilities. Indeed, while there are multiple psychological tests which can be administered, the results are still based upon the subjective responses of the patient. Furthermore, a doctor’s clinical examination, long-term evaluation by a treating doctor, and the consistent assessment by one’s treating doctor, provide for the best and most ‘objective’ basis for a valid medical opinion. Further (my argument would often go), even physical disabilities (like a bulging disc) which can be ascertained by an MRI, cannot provide a conclusive basis to determine the extent of one’s pain or inability to perform certain tasks, for pain is by definition a “subjective” condition; there are, indeed, some who have bulging discs but have very little pain, and others who have a minimal bulging disc which completely debilitates the individual. These were rational arguments made, and while fairly persuasive when combined with case-law citations, the force of such arguments often depended upon the receptiveness of OPM’s representative or, at the Merit Systems Protection Board level, the receptiveness of the Administrative Judge.

With the opinion expressed by the Court in Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, we no longer need to rely upon the arbitrary receptiveness of an individual, for we have a firm legal basis to counter the irrational basis that OPM routinely gives in their denials based upon an objective/subjective distinction.

The Court in Vanieken-Ryals made several important declarations in their opinion:

1. That OPM can no longer make the argument that an Applicant’s disability retirement application contains “insufficient medical evidence” because of its lack of “objective medical evidence”, especially when the application is based upon psychiatric medical conditions. This, because there is no statute or regulation which “imposes such a requirement” that “objective” medical evidence is required to prove disability.

2. As long as the treating doctor of the disability retirement applicant utilizes “established diagnostic criteria” and applies modalities of treatment which are “consistent with ‘generally accepted professional standards'”, then the application is eligible for consideration.

3. It is “legal error for either agency (OPM or the MSPB) to reject submitted medical evidence as entitled to no probative weight at all solely because it lacks so-called ‘objective’ measures such as laboratory tests.”

Ultimately, for purposes of this article, which is (hopefully) read by many non-lawyers, the essence of the Vanieken-Ryals case is that it exponentially strengthens a disability retirement application based solely upon psychiatric medical disabilities. The case itself contains many other elements which provide for strong ammunition, when used wisely and with knowledge, for the disability retirement practitioner of law. It makes a strong and unequivocal statement that OPM’s and MSPB’s adherence to a rule which systematically demands for “objective” medical evidence and refuses to consider “subjective” medical evidence, is “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.” This is indeed strong language which can be used as a sword to prevail in a disability retirement case.

Persistence in the pursuit of a client’s right and entitlement to disability retirement benefits is never a lost cause, and those who have hesitated from filing for disability retirement because they suffer from purely psychiatric medical disabilities, or from disabilities which are often harder to “objectively” justify (e.g., Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, etc.) have a greater chance because of the bold legal opinion as expressed by the Court in Vanieken-Ryals.

This is a landmark case of incalculable importance and impact, which cannot be overemphasized. I have already cited the case on numerous occasions at the MSPB level, and the fact that it is a Court of Appeals decision makes it binding upon all MSPB judges. It gives greater hope for those who suffer from Psychiatric Disabilities alone, that their cases will not somehow be looked upon with less chance of approval than a person with a physical medical condition.

Other case updates: While Vanieken-Ryals was not a case that I represented, there are some case-updates from my own files which may be of some interest to my readers. All information provided is already in the public record of the written Opinion of the Judges, and there is no information revealed here that violates my attorney-client confidentiality. I wish that I could claim that I win all of my cases; I cannot. However, it is my firm belief that persistence in the pursuit of a client’s disability retirement application is never a lost cause, and here are three cases which reinforce my philosophy:

1. Tucker v. OPM (DA-844E-07-0314-I-1) The Office of Personnel Management kept denying Ms. Tucker’s disability retirement application. This case was finally won at the Hearing level. However, the Office of Personnel Management filed a Petition for Review. I responded with — among other arguments — the fact that the Office of Personnel Management failed to make any legal arguments showing that the Hearing Judge committed any legal errors. The Full Board rejected OPM’s Petition and affirmed the decision in my favor. No further appeals have been filed. I am happy for my client that after so many years, she will now get her disability retirement. Persistence in rebutting OPM’s attempt to reverse a Hearing Judge’s decision is never a lost cause.

2. Hartsock-Shaw v. OPM (PH-844E-06-0658-I-1) This one is the converse of the previous one, in that the Hearing Judge initially affirmed OPM’s denial of my client’s disability retirement application. I filed a Petition for Review, because I believed the Judge was wrong in not applying the Bruner Presumption in this case. The Full Board vacated the Initial Decision and Remanded the case back to the Hearing Judge, requiring further testimony on the issue of whether the Bruner Presumption should have been applied. We were able to factually prove that the circumstantial evidence necessitated the finding that my client was removed for her medical inability to perform her job, even though there was no final letter of removal issued by the Postal Service that we could find. The Judge sided with us, reversed her prior decision, and granted my client her disability retirement benefits. Persistence paid, and persistence in the pursuit of a disability retirement claim is never a lost cause.

3. Heiter v. OPM (AT-0831-07-0435-I-1) This is an interesting case. It has to do with a client who lost his disability retirement benefits because he tried to go to work for Federal Express. He was being punished for trying. One would think that a disability retirement annuitant would be commended and praised for trying — but, no, because he applied for, got the job with, and then quit, a job with Federal Express, he was deemed to have been ‘less than honest’ for having retired on disability from a Postal Job, and therefore OPM cut off his disability retirement benefits. We went to Hearing on the matter; the doctor testified unequivocally that he couldn’t do the job — neither the Federal Express one nor his prior Postal job — but he couldn’t fault his patient for having tried. OPM made a big deal about the fact that my client periodically went bowling. The Judge ruled in OPM’s favor. I filed a Petition for Full Review. The Board reversed the Initial Decision, and reinstated my client’s disability retirement annuity.

Here again, persistence pays, and persistence in pursuit of a disability claim is never a lost cause.

I am an attorney who specializes in representing Federal and Postal employees to obtain and retain disability retirement benefits. In pursuing one‘s entitlement to disability retirement benefits, one must always take the long-term perspective, and pursue that right with aggressiveness and persistence. It is an investment for one‘s future, and it is important to pursue your future investment aggressively, and to sustain your investment for a long time into the future.

For more information, contact me in one of these ways:

• View my website at www.FederalDisabilityLawyer.com
• Email me at federal.lawyer@yahoo.com
• Call me at 1-800-990-7932

 

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire