Federal OPM Disability Retirement: The Mistakes People Make

The greatest mistake of all is to “assume” X or to “presume” Y; and this is not uncommon, precisely because the wording of the Standard Forms as presented on SF 3112A (Applicant’s Statement of Disability), which is the central basis upon which a Federal/Postal Disability Retirement application is formulated (both for CSRS as well as for FERS employees), makes it appear as if obtaining an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is merely a pro forma activity.

And, indeed, many have informed the undersigned attorney that Human Resources’ personnel at various agencies will understate the scrutiny which OPM will apply in reviewing and evaluating a Federal or Postal Medical Retirement application.

The main problem with H.R. Personnel dismissing the arduous and meticulously scrutinizing administrative process as applied by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is that such underestimation is barely acknowledged when a denial is received from OPM on a Federal Disability Retirement case.  All of a sudden, the Human Resources personnel put up their hands and state, “It’s not our responsibility”, when all along they had been insisting as to the ease of the process.

No, it is true — it is not the ultimate responsibility of the Agency or its Human Resources Department.  Yes, it is also true that any application for a CSRS or FERS Disability Retirement is the responsibility of the individual applicant.

As such, because responsibility falls squarely (why, by the way, is it “squarely“, as opposed to “triangularly” or “circularly”?) upon the Federal or Postal Worker, it behooves one to take the entire process seriously, and to invest the proper time, attention, and expenses needed, to do it right “the first time”.

Sincerely,

McGill Disability Retirement Legal Services

 

Medical Retirement for Federal and Postal Employees: Stupid Mistakes

Our first reaction may be that such a phrase is in fact a tautology; for, to make a “mistake” is by definition to do something “stupid”, and so it is merely a redundancy to use and place both terms together.  But surely we can conceive of circumstances in which “making a mistake” turns out to be the very opposite of having done something “stupid”?

Perhaps some earth-shattering mistake in science resulted in a new discovery — of having made a mistake in combining two or more elements but resulting in a new, composite element beneficial to society?  Or of having made an accounting error which accrued to one’s personal financial benefit?  But even then, one may argue that the mistake itself was a stupid one; the consequences merely turned out to be beneficial, but that doesn’t necessarily impact the character of the mistake itself.

And what of follies in our youth?  Does age and greater experience, retrospectively reflecting back into the series of life’s mistakes and actions thoughtlessly taken, lead us to conclude that we have made multiple “stupid mistakes”?  What, then, constitutes a “mistake” such that it was stupid?

Often, a glimpse into what we did in the past — of having forged ahead without a plan, thoughtlessly, and without due diligence in considering all of the factors; these, and many more actions taken without an inkling of preparatory counsel, constitute what most people consider as a “stupid mistake”.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it may be necessary to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.  In doing so, it is necessary to have a full and comprehensive understanding of the laws which govern FERS Disability Retirement and the administrative process and procedures abounding.

Consult with a FERS Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, lest you come to regret it as one more “stupid mistake” that was made — as one of many that we all make throughout our lifetimes.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Making it Easy for OPM

Whether inadvertently or not, an Applicant who has formulated, prepared and filed a Federal Disability Retirement application either under FERS or CSRS will make it easy for the Office of Personnel Management to deny a case.  

Thus, for instance, on the Applicant’s Statement of Disability, where the applicant is asked concerning the status one is in at the agency, if the applicant agrees with the Agency or the Supervisor that the Agency has “accommodated” the individual in his or her employment, then the Office of Personnel Management will often focus selectively upon that answer and argue that, inasmuch as X has stated that the employee has been accommodated, and Y (the employee — you) has agreed with the agency, therefore Y is not eligible or entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits because Y has been accommodated.  

But, as it has been previously stated on multiple occasions, the term “accommodation” is a technical term of art, and if one fails to appreciate the nuances of the term, the applicant who is filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS can fall into the trap of using the term in a non-technical, general way, and thereby defeat one’s own application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability: The Filing

Never be deceptive in your filing. Always be truthful. To be deceptive or untruthful will harm your credibility, your case, and ultimately, may defeat your ability to obtain disability retirement benefits. Now, there is a conceptual distinction between being “truthful” and emphasizing certain issues of your case, while leaving certain other issues as secondary and less prominent in the documents & supportive papers filed. Thus, to take a rather crude example, while everyone in the world spends a great deal of his or her life in the restroom, we rarely — if ever — talk about such events. Is it because we are not being “truthful”? No — instead, while it is an issue which is not emphasized, it is not something which we are also being deceptive about.

Thus, with respect to disability retirement issues, one should never deliberately attempt to mislead, hide, or otherwise “expunge” certain aspects of the disability retirement application. At the same time, however, those aspects which are not very helpful, or which may harm your case, should not be placed in bold-type or underlined in red. Wherever possible, those aspects which will weaken your case, should simply be de-emphasized — but never deliberately hidden.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire