The argument in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS goes as follows: An Agency has determined that a Federal or Postal employee is medically unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job; that Federal or Postal employee cannot be accommodated; the case-law states that, at a minimum, the agency conclusions have a persuasive effect upon a Federal Disability Retirement application; ergo, the Office of Personnel Management should approve the Federal or Postal employee’s Federal Disability Retirement application under either FERS or CSRS.
The problem with such an argument, if relied upon exclusively, is threefold: (1) The statutory mandate as to which agency makes a determination upon a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS is misplaced, (2) The Agency, whether the Flight Surgeon at the FAA who determines that an Air Traffic Controller is medically unqualified to continue in his or her job, or the Postal Service who determines pursuant to the National Reassessment Process (NRP) that there is no longer a job available at the Postal Service, or any other agency which determines that no accommodations can be provided — has not applied all of the legal criteria under the laws and statutes governing Federal Disability Retirement applications, and (3) the focus from the perspective of the agency is a “second-tier” focus — of whether an accommodation can be provided to the Federal or Postal employee to see if the efficiency of the Agency can continue, as opposed to the “first-tier” issue of whether the Federal or Postal employee has a medical condition such that it satisfies all of the criteria for a Federal Disability Retirement application.
As such, it is the focus of the respective agencies which differentiate the possibility of an agency action being merely persuasive, as opposed to determinative, in a Federal Disability Retirement applicationunder either FERS or CSRS.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Agency’s and/or Supervisor’s Actions | Tagged: about the opm disability support claim from the us agency, administrative actions against federal employee, adverse actions while in OWCP, agency actions against federal employee, agency removal action and opm disability retirement, agency's extraordinary top assessment in fers disability applications, agency's influence in disability retirement, agency's influence versus power to grant opm disability, condition that prevents to perform the essential functions, conditions that prevent performing the essential elements of your fed job, consequences of an agency's adverce action, disability retirement benefits for air traffic controllers, essential elements of jobs, essential requirements of a job and total disability concepts, FAA Air Traffic Controllers, federal non disciplinary actions, fers disability retirement and the issue of trusting the agency, how removal actions can affect your federal disability application and outcome, light duty federal workers in danger of inaction, National Reassessment Process (NRP), opm national finance office disability retirement, postal service actions against the postal worker, unfair agency's actions against light duty workers, when the federal agency is unable to accommodate, your medical retirement rights and the national reassessment process | Leave a comment »