SF 3112B

OPM Standard Form 3112B: Supervisor’s Statement:

Were it that managerial approaches were diverse, and that such differences in stylistic methodologies constituted a perfect tailoring of individual personality to a particular job at hand; then, in that event, efficiency would predominate, scandals of long waiting times would disappear, and Federal and Post Office Workers would never be tested in their penultimate entanglement with the requisite virtue of patience.  But this is the real world. This is not some parallel universe in which dreams are dictated by wants and desires, and satisfaction of personal goals are attained at a whim.

In the harsh reality of technological onslaughts and daily toils of repetitive boredom, supervisors are placed in positions of trust, often misfits in an universe of onerous regulatory requirements and mandates.  As in all sectors of society, both public and private, there are good ones and bad, competent and their opposite; caring and callous; cold, indifferent, or warm beyond a fault.  But because of the busy-ness of the world in which we live, being aware of, or having the time to care for, the problems of subordinates, is a rare trait.

For the Federal and Postal employee who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition necessitates filing for Federal Medical Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or the Postal worker is under FERS or CSRS, the process will require the request for completion of SF 3112B, or more commonly known as the Supervisor’s Statement. For some, it will merely be a nuisance in the mere act of requesting; for others, a chaotic turmoil of sorts, filled with angst and thoughts of retribution and retaliation.

Ultimately, however, this is where standardized forms work for the benefit of Federal and Postal employees, because of the specificity of questions posed in SF 3112B.  Yes, there are blank spaces for some extemporaneous comments; yes, attachments to SF 3112B are allowed; but the most relevant queries are merely requests for box-checking, and that is where brevity is to the benefit of the Federal employee or Postal worker.

In the end, the process of filing for Federal Disability benefits through OPM is based upon the sufficiency of medical documentation, and not what a Supervisor says or leaves out in SF 3112B.  That is why an executed methodology of a coherent strategy to obtain evidentiary support is so crucial to a successful outcome in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Employee Disability Insurance benefits, whether the Federal employee or Postal worker is under FERS or CSRS.

 

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Reality of Accommodations

Medical conditions test the value of a worker; for, while people may engage in theoretical discussions of “cost-benefits analysis“, where the cost of X is compared and contrasted to the benefit of Y, such that the hypothetical analysis results in a business decision based upon pure economic need — the reality of such an approach rarely gets a true test beyond such dinner table discussions.  But when a Federal or Postal Worker begins to suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition visibly impacts one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, then the economic paradigm of a cost-benefits analysis is applied, whether overtly or in a more subtle, inconspicuous manner.

The agency may recognize the need to allow for temporary suspension of certain positional duties — travel may be taken up by some other employee; heavy lifting may need an additional helper; telecommuting may be a viable option.  The cost of such temporary measures is felt in the work left undone; the benefit is accrued by the experience, wisdom, and knowledge of the disabled retained worker.  In rarer occasions, a formal request for an accommodation may be submitted by the Federal or Postal Worker, and an administrative process of attempting to provide a legally viable accommodation may ensue; but that is a rare process, indeed.

The reality of accommodations in the Federal sector is one of practical need versus the trouble such attempts bring; for the Federal or Postal Worker, whether under FERS or CSRS, the true option left is to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Such an option results from an agency being tested — and loyalties revealed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Medical Retirement: Reassignment Considerations

In considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the issue of possible reassignment will arise — normally as a rather secondary and unimportant facet of the process — as an obligatory agency action.

SF 3112D is a form which the agency must complete.  The form essentially affirms that the agency attempted either of 2 things:  tried to “accommodate” the Federal or Postal employee, or tried to find a suitable “reassignment” to another existing, available position.

As to the latter, case-law has made it clear that in order for an offer of reassignment to preclude the Federal or Postal employee from continuing with one’s Federal Disability Retirement application, such light or limited duty offer must be at the same pay or grade of one’s current position (there are some complicating details connected with the enunciated standard, but for present purposes, this general rule will suffice).

Sometimes, the Agency or the U.S. Postal Service will find a lower-paying position, and offer it, and the employee will gladly accept it because it allows for continued employment.  But one must understand that, if down the road, the Federal or Postal employee finds that he or she is unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of that “lower” position, then it is from that “lower” (and often of lesser responsibilities) position that one will be filing for Federal Disability Retirement.

Just some thoughts to ponder; for, as a general rule, the greater the responsibilities of a position, the lesser the standard of meeting the threshold for a Federal Disability Retirement; and, conversely, the lesser the responsibilities of a position, the higher requirement to prove one’s case in a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Psychiatric Conditions and Accommodations

In preparing, formulating and filing a successful Federal Disability Retirement application with the Office of Personnel Management, under FERS or CSRS, the issue of accommodations will come up.  The Agency from which one retires under a Medical Disability Retirement will have to ultimately fill out Standard Form 3112D —  Agency Certification of Reassignment and Accommodation Efforts — which will constitute and satisfy the Agency’s attempts at “accommodating” a Federal or Postal worker in his or her current position, taking into account his or her medical conditions. 

Unfortunately, most medical conditions are deemed to be “non-accommodatable” (if such a term exists in the English Language), and this is logically as well as legally true because with or without the accommodations, one must be able to perform all of the essential elements of one’s positional description.  Minor adjustments to the workplace, or even to the work assignments, may be able to allow for the Federal or Postal worker to continue to work in a Federal or Postal position for some time, but that Federal or Postal worker must be able to perform all of the essential elements of the job, as described in the position description.   An Agency may temporarily suspend certain elements of the core functions of the job, but such temporary suspension does not constitute an accommodation under the law. 

For psychiatric medical conditions, it is rare that an Agency will be able to accommodate such a medical condition, precisely because of the inherent nature of the medical condition — that which impacts upon one’s focus, attention, concentration, and ability to organize and perform executive functions in a coherent and systematic manner.  As such, the issue of accommodation, while one which may have to be addressed in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, is normally an irrelevant, non-issue.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Continuing Confusions

In Federal Disability Retirement law under FERS & CSRS, the issue concerning accommodations can continue to remain a rather confusing area of law.  This is especially true when an Agency allows for an individual, either in the Postal Service (which is becoming rarer because of the prevailing winds of the National Reassessment Program) or in the non-Postal, Federal sector, to remain in a position and perform much of the lighter duties of the job, and to allow for one or more of the essential duties of the job to be delegated to others, or not be performed at all.  Now, such a situation can continue on for years, and there is nothing inherently wrong with such an arrangement (aside from the fact that the other Federal workers to whom such work is “delegated” may grumble and complain about fairness or, more likely, that some of the work is never completed), especially if the work which the injured individual performs is valuable to the Agency — even in such a “light duty” status.  

What must be kept in mind, however, regarding the relevance and significance to filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, is that throughout the entire time-period of being on such light duty, the Federal or Postal worker could have, at any time, filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits and should have been approved.  This is because such temporary “light duty” arrangements never constituted an “accommodation” under the law, and the Federal or Postal worker was eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits regardless of remaining in the “light duty” job.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The Doctor & the Applicant

Before a client hires an attorney to obtain Federal Disability Retirement Benefits under FERS or CSRS, it is important that he or she has an initial commitment from the treating doctor, that a medical narrative report discussing and addressing the specific issues surrounding Federal disability retirement will be prepared. While medical reports are always helpful, and sometimes a disability retirement application can be successfully prepared, submitted and approved with the supporting documentation being comprised entirely from treatment and diagnostic records, such an application can only be compiled with the assistance of an experienced attorney.

The properly prepared medical narrative is crucial to the success of a Federal disability retirement application, generally speaking. Further, the compendium of case-laws issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board over the past decade (and longer) clearly reveal that greater weight will be given to a medical disability retirement narrative prepared by a treating doctor of long-standing tenure having a doctor/patient relationship, as opposed to a single-examination doctor for purposes of disability determination. The key? Form that bond with the treating doctor — such that the treating doctor is truly your “treating physician”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: OWCP, Light Duty & Federal Disability Retirement

As I stated in my previous blog, OWCP is not a retirement system. Instead, it is meant to return an injured worker back to productivity with his or her agency. This is done through means of providing for medical treatments; paying the Federal employee temporary total disability benefits during the time of treatment and recuperation; then, if the Federal or Postal employee is unable to return to the former position in full capacity, to offer a “modified position” to the employee.  At each step in the process of OWCP/DOL, the onerous and burdensome hand of the process becomes clear — for, if at any time, the employee refuses to follow the mandates given by OWCP, the real threat of having one’s temporary compensation suddenly terminated is always a possibility. 

Thus, in accepting OWCP benefits, there is a clear trade-off:  tax free compensation for the price of being completely governed by OWCP.  Then, when the modified job offer is given, you have no choice but to accept it, in whatever form, and must be accepted “as is” — otherwise, your temporary total disability payments will be terminated.  Remember, however, that accepting such a position does NOT preclude you from filing for disability retirement benefits, because the case-law governing Federal Disability Retirement has a “safety” feature:  in order to be considered a legally viable “accommodation” under the law, the modified job that is offered and accepted must have been one which was previously in existence, and vacant.  It cannot be your old job slot, modified by a piece of paper prepared by your agency and the Department of Labor.  It must be a true job.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: Further Thoughts on Reasonable Accommodation by the Agency

The problem with Agency efforts to provide an employee with reasonable accommodations is that such attempts are too often than not, neither “reasonable” nor legally viable accommodations.  Let’s remember that a legally viable “accommodation” is that act, allowance, or modification, which allows the employee to continue to perform and complete the core or essential elements of one’s position.  Further, Federal and Postal employees need to understand that there is nothing inherently wrong with an Agency providing an accommodation that is neither legally viable (for Federal disability retirement purposes) nor “reasonable”.

Let me explain.  Let’s say that an employee works for the Postal Service.  He or she gets injured, and let’s even assume that it is a valid OWCP Department of Labor claim.  At some point, because OWCP/DOL is NOT a retirement system, they will often “create” a “modified position” and make a modified, or light-duty job offer.  It could be as extreme as sitting in a corner and answering the telephone.  Now, if the individual gets the same pay, there is nothing inherently wrong with such a modified job offer.  However, at the same time, you need to remember that accepting such a modified job offer does not preclude the employee from filing for, and getting approved, an application for Federal Disability Retirement.  This is because the modified (or “light duty”) job offer is not a real, previously-vacant position, and therefore is neither “reasonable” nor truly an accommodation under federal disability retirement laws.  Nevertheless, there was nothing wrong with the Agency making up such a “modified job” and offering it to the employee.  This is true of all Agencies in the Federal Government, across the Board, from FAA Air Traffic Controllers who have lost their medical clearances, to IT Specialists who have lost their security clearances, to executive level administrators:  modified duties, and “make-up” positions, while remaining in the same position, does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong with the modified job offer.  It just means that such a modified job is neither a “reasonable” accommodation, and nor is it an “accommodation” at all — at least, not under the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: Reasonable Accommodation by the Agency

Often, aside from having submitted insufficient medical documentation to support a Federal Disability retirement application, the Office of Personnel Management will deny a case based upon a statement submitted by the Supervisor, normally on SF 3112B (aptly entitled, “Supervisor’s Statement”).  Now, in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, I rarely worry about what will be on a Supervisor’s Statement, primarily because the applicant rarely has any control over the contents of the statement, anyway, and therefore to focus upon that which one has little or no control over, is simply a waste of time.  Instead, I focus upon obtaining an overwhelmingly convincing medical narrative report from the doctor, which then essentially makes the Supervisor’s Statement — if it is viewed somewhat as “negative evidence” by the Office of Personnel Management — a moot and irrelevant point of contention.  More often than not, when the Office of Personnel Management refers to the Supervisor’s Statement as revealing some basis for denying a disability retirement application, I find that OPM has either mis-read the import of the statement, or has selectively misquoted from the Supervisor’s Statement.  Remember that the law requires that the Agency provide a “reasonable accommodation”; more often than not, what the Supervisor or the Agency has provided, is neither “reasonable”, nor an “accommodation” under the law.  In any event, whether by misquote, unfair and selective reasoning, misreading, “unreasonable”, or not an “accommodation” at all, I rarely find that the Supervisor’s Statement is helpful or unhelpful; and, certainly, I have never found that a Supervisor’s Statement contains any substance which would or should be the basis of a denial from the Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM’s Medical Questionnaire and the Issue of Accommodations

In this article, I will be addressing two separate issues: First, the issue of OPM’s Medical Questionnaire, and next, the issue of Accommodations.

OPM’s Medical Questionnaire

At each stage of the process, an annuitant must always see his or her monthly annuity as a right which must be fought and protected. In recent months, I have seen an increase in cases where an individual has been an annuitant, but has lost his or her annuity because OPM’s Medical Questionnaire (sent out to selected annuitants every two years) was not taken seriously. Whether the increase is by coincidence — that a greater number of annuitants failed to respond to the Medical Questionnaire seriously, or because the Office of Personnel Management is scrutinizing annuitants more carefully — is irrelevant; what is relevant is that, whether you are fighting to obtain your disability retirement, or fighting to keep your disability annuity, the approach should always be consistently the same: be prepared to defend your disability annuity aggressively.

Some basic rules in responding to OPM’s Medical Questionnaire:

Rule #1: Take it seriously. Yes, the four questions seem fairly straightforward and innocuous: Get your treating doctor to provide current clinical findings based upon a recent examination; get a current diagnosis; a current prognosis; and finally, a clinical assessment of risk of injury or hazard to self if you returned to your former job. This all sounds simple enough, and it is, if you follow the first rule: take it seriously.

Rule #2: Don’t have your doctor send in the updated medical report directly to OPM without letting you first see it. I have represented more people for breaking this rule. Think about it — why would you allow a report to be sent to OPM without first reviewing it? Take responsibility; protect your disability annuity. Make sure the doctor is addressing the issues that need to be addressed – and properly.

Rule #3: Make sure that your doctor addresses the specific medical conditions for which you obtained your disability retirement. While you may have had 5 different disabilities that impacted your ability to perform your job when you first applied, when the Office of Personnel Management grants you your disability retirement, if the first one listed on your application qualifies you, they will grant you the disability retirement based upon that first disability, and will not proceed to consider the remaining 4 disabilities. In responding to OPM’s Medical Questionnaire, the disability annuitant must establish that he/she suffers from the same disability upon which the disability retirement was based, and that he remains unable to perform the duties of the last position he occupied prior to being granted disability retirement, or that his condition is incompatible with useful and efficient service or retention in the position. See Tompkins v. Office of Personnel Management, 72 M.S.P.R. 400, 404 (1996); Prestien v. Office of Personnel Management, 8 M.S.P.R. 698, 704-05 (1981). Further, an annuitant is not entitled to continuation of disability retirement simply on the basis that his physical condition is unchanged since he was granted disability retirement, where present medical evidence does not establish that he is disabled. See Dougherty v. Office of Personnel Management, 36 M.S.P.R. 117, 121 (1988). When I have represented a client and obtained disability retirement for my client, I send out a letter apprising the client of his future rights and obligations — one of them being, to keep in regular contact with his treating doctor, so that when or if a Medical Questionnaire is received, there is already an established doctor-patient relationship, and you don’t go about scrambling to find a doctor who is willing to write a responsive report to the Medical Questionnaire.

Finally, Rule #4: Keep it simple. The doctor’s response to OPM’s Medical Questionnaire need not be lengthy and complex: indeed, it can be a single paragraph, and refer to a recent examination, and include treatment or office notes, and simply state: Current diagnosis; symptoms; prognosis; and a statement that “X is still disabled based upon medical condition Y from his former job as a ________, and cannot go back to his former job because of his medical conditions.”

Thus, to reiterate: Take the OPM Medical Questionnaire seriously; keep in regular contact with your doctor; make sure the doctor addresses the medical conditions that you were found to be disabled for; and don’t allow the doctor to send it directly to OPM without first reviewing it.

Second Issue: Accommodations

Recent cases by the Merit Systems Protection Board continue to affirm the very important legal principle of protecting Federal and Postal employees from being assigned ad hoc, or “made-up” jobs, while still being slotted in the original position, as reflected in one’s PS or SF form 50. Just because you are offered a “modified position” that appears to be ‘official’, if you haven’t been reassigned to a vacant position that actually exists, then you are still eligible for disability retirement. Don’t be fooled. In the recent case of Cadman v. OPM, Docket No. CH-844E-07-0002-I-1, the Merit Systems Protection Board, upon a Petition for Review by the Appellant, again revisited this issue, and again referred to the important case of Ancheta v. Office of Personnel Management, 95 M.S.P.R. 343 (2003). In Ancheta, the Board held that a modified job in the Postal Service that does not “comprise the core functions of an existing position” is not a “position” or a “vacant position” for purposes of determining eligibility for disability retirement. The Board noted that a “modified” job in the Postal Service may include “’subfunctions’ culled from various positions that are tailored to the employee’s specific medical restrictions,” and thus may not constitute “an identifiable position when the employee for whom the assignment was created is not assigned to those duties.” Id., at p. 14. The Board thus suggested that a “modified” job in the Postal Service generally would not constitute a “position” or a “vacant position.” Id. Thus, what the Board in Ancheta was saying, and reaffirmed and reiterated in Cadman, is that the “made-up” job that the Postal Service puts on an “official-looking” Modified Job Offer Sheet, is in all likelihood not an accommodation. This is true of jobs in non-Postal Federal Agencies, also.

The Board’s holdings in Cadman and Ancheta, and the long line of such legal reasonings, clearly strengthen Postal and Federal employees’ rights concerning disability retirement, when placed in the context of longstanding law as held by the Federal Circuit Court in Bracey v. Office of Personnel Management, 236 F.3d 1356, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001). I have previously addressed this issue in my other articles, of course, but let me reiterate that in Bracey, the Federal Circuit Court delineated and outlined the applicable provisions governing disability retirement, stating that “the pertinent OPM regulation elaborates on the statutory definition by providing that an employee is eligible for disability retirement only if (1) the disabling medical condition is expected to continue for at least one year; (2) the condition results in a deficiency in performance, conduct, or attendance, or is incompatible with useful and efficient service or retention in the employee’s position; and (3) the agency is unable to accommodate the disabling condition in the employee’s position or in an existing vacant position.” In Bracey, the Court clearly stated that an employee must be reassigned to a “vacant” position, and not one which was merely “made up”, and the reasoning of the court is clear: the Court Stated:

“We Agree with Mr. Bracey that OPM’s argument fails, because the term ‘vacant position’ in section 8337 refers to an officially established position that is graded and classified, not to an informal assignment of work that an agency gives to an employee who cannot perform the duties of his official position. A ‘position’ in the federal employment system is required to be classified and graded in accordance with the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements associated with it.” Id. at p. 1359

Further, the Court went on to state that the term “vacant position” means “something that is definite and already in existence rather than an unclassified set of duties devised to meet the needs of a particular employee who cannot perform the duties of his official position.” Id. at 1360.

Putting Bracey, Ancheta, and Cadman together, Federal and Postal employees have a formidable argument which protects their disability retirement rights: When you become medical unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of you job, as outlined in your position description, Agencies cannot leave you in the same job slot and make up different things for you to do. The idea of ‘accommodation’ is a term of art, and must not be viewed in the way that the ‘general public’ might view it: if you have a medical condition or disability, and your employer says that the Agency has ‘created’ a position that somehow does away with those essential elements of your job that you cannot do anymore, that is NOT an accommodation. In fact, an accommodation is the very opposite: it is where the Agency provides some means such that you CAN continue to do all of the essential elements of your job.

I know that I keep reminding you of this, but I think that it is worth repetitive reminders: Disability retirement is a benefit that all Federal and Postal employees signed onto when you became employed. Many private sector jobs don’t offer this benefit, but then, such private sector jobs of equivalent positional requirements often pay more in base salaries. It is one of the benefits you acquired — a right — in the event of a medical condition or disability which prevents you from continuing in your career. As such, when you can no longer continue in your Federal or Postal job, you must look upon disability retirement as a right and an investment for your future — one which must be aggressively sought after, and once obtained, protected with similar diligence and aggressiveness.

I am an attorney who specializes in representing Federal and Postal employees to obtain and retain disability retirement benefits. Like the giraffe, you cannot allow for appearances to fool you; you must always and aggressively protect your rights and future. The leopard is known for quickly and aggressively capturing its prey; the camel is known for long and sustained trips. You need to be both a leopard and a camel – 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: (1) view my website at www.FederalDisabilityLawyer.com; (2) email me at federal.lawyer@yahoo.com; or call me at 1-800-990-7932.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire