FERS Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: The Long-term Plan

Federal Disability Retirement is best anticipated and implemented within the larger context of a long term plan.  For, with the reduction of immediate income, replaced by an annuity which is fixed, but with a future potential to earn additional earned income in another (or even similar) vocation, it is best seen not just for the present circumstances, but as a base from which to build a greater future.

Future considerations may need to be entertained.  For example, how aggressively should Social Security Disability (SSDI) be pursued? If the Federal or Postal employee attempting to become eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits will not be immediately seeking to work at another, private-sector job, and there is a good chance for qualifying for SSDI, then you may want to consider seriously attempting to qualify for SSDI.

For most people, the FERS requirement of filing for SSDI is a mere formality. For those who intend upon using the immediacy of the annuity for a recuperative period in order to attend to medical needs, then perhaps a minimal effort in applying for SSDI would be appropriate.

With the recent case of Stephenson v. OPM now firmly in the “win” column, any issue about future recalculation once a Federal or Postal employee loses his or her entitlement to SSDI benefits, has now been resolved, and the Federal or Postal annuitant need not worry about the issue.  Of course, there is a wide chasm between what “the law” says, and how quickly OPM will do what they are now mandated to do.  But in the end, OPM will have to recalculate and reinstate any amounts which were offset, once a Federal or Postal employee loses his or her SSDI benefits.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Continuation of the Offset Issue

As noted previously, the issue of whether or not OPM needs to recalculate one’s FERS Disability Retirement annuity upon losing one’s SSDI benefits should now be resolved.  

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management has been arguing for years, if not decades, that despite losing SSDI payments because the recipient has engaged in substantial gainful activity, that no recalculation is in order because the annuitant is still technically “entitled” to the benefits.  

The argument which the undersigned writer made before a 3-Judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, is the following:  How can one “offset” something with nothing?  As King Lear said to his daughter Cordelia when she refused to shower him with flowery praises of love, “Nothing comes from nothing”.  

Whatever word-games one may engage in, one cannot offset an amount of zero against another amount.  Further, since the FERS (and CSRS) Disability Retirement annuitant is allowed to make up to 80% of what one’s former position pays, it made absolutely no sense to penalize the individual who was receiving SSDI but loses it for making too much money, to not place him/her in the same position as one who never received SSDI.  

Common sense seems to have prevailed.  

The security of knowing that, in filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the Courts will actually reverse a nonsensical position of a government agency, is indeed something to smile about.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS/SSDI Offsets: Major Precedent-setting Case

For those FERS Disability Retirement annuitants who are/were concurrently receiving SSDI benefits, and have gone out to earn more income — there is good news.

In the past, if you exceeded the allowable income-ceiling, you would lose your SSDI benefits because you engaged in substantial gainful activity.  With no longer receiving SSDI benefits, the FERS annuitant would go to OPM and request that the Disability Retirement annuity be “recalculated”, because he/she is no longer receiving the SSDI offset amount.

In the past, OPM has consistently (and now, wrongly, it turns out) argued that, because such an individual continues to remain “entitled” to SSDI benefits (even though he/she is not receiving any such benefits), that therefore OPM is not required to recalculate the FERS disability retirement annuity upwards for the benefit of the FERS individual.

No longer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit just issued the opinion in Stephenson v. OPM, Case #2012-3074, in which they have clearly and unequivocally stated that OPM’s interpretation of the law has been in error.  When a FERS disability retirement annuitant loses his or her SSDI benefits for engaging in substantial gainful activity, OPM must recalculate the FERS disability retirement benefit.

I argued the case in early December; the Court issued its precedent-setting opinion in just over a month.  This is indeed a major victory for FERS annuitants.  You can now take this case and wave it at OPM and demand that your Federal Disability Retirement annuity be recalculated — in your favor.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Attorney Robert R. McGill Reviews from former clients

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: FERS & SSDI Offset

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, an additional component must be satisfied (CSRS is exempted):  filing for Social Security Disability benefits.  

In doing so, various factors need to be taken into account:  Whether the Federal or Postal employee intends to work at another job while receiving FERS Disability Retirement annuity; the chances of actually succeeding in applying for SSDI; and further, a future consideration — if one gets approved for SSDI and FERS Disability Retirement, but later is dropped from the Social Security annuity, will the Office of Personnel Management recalculate the FERS Disability Annuity?  

This is a question which has been appeal to the Full Board of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and thus far, the Full Board has ruled in favor of OPM, that OPM’s interpretation of the statutes, rules and laws governing SSDI/FERS Disability Retirement offset is “reasonable”, where loss of entitlement to the former does not require recalculation despite the fact that the former Federal or Postal employee no longer receives Social Security Disability benefits.  

An appeal is likely to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  The bright spot is that there was a dissenting opinion by one of the Board Members.

Fortunately, most people do not qualify for SSDI, anyway, and so it does not widely impact most Federal or Postal employees who file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.  Information and updates to follow.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: Interactions

Preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is a necessary step for a Federal or Postal employee who finds that he or she can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job because of a medical condition.  

In doing so, there are obviously potential interactive processes which one must consider.  If the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, then you must file for SSDI (Social Security Disability benefits), because that is what the law requires.  

Further, one must determine how aggressively, to what extent, and to what end and purpose one needs to file in pursuing SSDI concurrently — for, if one is planning on working at another, separate job while receiving a Federal Disability Retirement annuity, then the cap imposed by SSDI as opposed to the 80% allowance for FERS Disability Retirement without SSDI, needs to be taken into consideration.  Such future planning will then determine the course of one’s actions, as to how hard one will try and obtain SSDI benefits.  

Additionally, if the medical condition arose from a work-related injury, then obviously filing a claim concurrently with the Department of Labor, Office of Workers Compensation under FECA should be contemplated.  

Then, there are those who, whether by accident or wisdom and foresight, obtained and paid for throughout the intervening years, a private disability insurance policy.  Such private disability insurance policies are essentially contracts — and whether there is an offset with Federal Disability Retirement benefits, Social Security, or OWCP depends upon the “fine print” of the contract.  

One minor note as to private disability policies:  The time to read the fine print is when the insurance agent is trying to sell you a policy — not when you need to apply for the benefits.  Private policies can be negotiated, and the terms can be amended.  

Finding a negative consequence after the fact is a costly error in judgment which can easily be mitigated by spending a few moments at the outset.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: SSDI Considerations

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS (CSRS is exempted), one must at some point — at the time of approval or anytime prior to — file for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits.  This is because, under the laws governing FERS Disability Retirement and Social Security, there is an offset of 100% between the two benefits in the first year, then a 60% offset between the two benefits every year thereafter.  

Most Federal and Postal employees who are filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS will not qualify for Social Security Disability benefits, precisely because Social Security has a higher standard of proof in order to qualify for such benefits.  However, one must nevertheless satisfy the requirement of filing for SSDI.  

For Social Security, one must essentially prove that one is “totally disabled” from performing any and all types of employment, whereas under FERS Disability Retirement eligibility criteria, one must merely show by a preponderance of the evidence that one is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s particular kind of job.  

Despite the difference in eligibility criteria, there are times when a Federal or Postal employee applicant will be deemed to qualify for Social Security Disability benefits, but not for FERS Disability Retirement.  While this may seem odd, this occurs because of the independent nature of each agency.  The Office of Personnel Management makes its determination independent of the Social Security Administration. There is case-law, however, which requires the Office of Personnel Management to take into consideration a Social Security Disability approval, and thus an SSDI approval can have some persuasive impact upon a FERS Disability Retirement application.  

Further, often an SSDI denial letter will specifically state a finding that while they have determined that the Federal or Postal employee fails to qualify for SSDI benefits, they acknowledge that he or she is unable to perform the particular kind of job in which they are currently employed.  Such statements can be used for further persuasive argumentation, but should be used with discretion and care.

As with most agency statements, an argument for its use can “cut both ways”, and one must have the discretionary wisdom to use them as a shield or sword wisely.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Three Pockets

In discussing Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, it is important to keep in mind the conceptual distinction between the three “pockets” of compensatory programs or resources (and, not to confuse the issue further, but these three pockets are separate and apart from the 3-legs of the retirement stool envisioned under FERS — the FERS Retirement annuity, Social Security, and TSP).

The three primary pockets of compensatory programs include:  CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement (and its companion hybrid, the CSRS-Offset)  — all of which get recalculated at age 62 to regular retirement; SSDI (Social Security Disability which, under FERS, one must file for automatically as part of the process of submitting for FERS Disability Retirement benefits, but under CSRS, one does not need to); and finally, Department of Labor, Office of Worker’s Compensation Program.

The former two have direct interaction, inasmuch as one who falls under FERS Disability Retirement must also file for SSDI, and if both are accepted, there is an offset of benefits between the two (100% offset the first year of benefits, 60% offset every year thereafter until age 62).  The last of the three pockets, OWCP benefits, as I have stated on many occasions, is not a retirement system, but one may file for such benefits concurrently with filing for FERS or CSRS Disability Retirement benefits (but one must elect between OWCP benefits on the one hand, and FERS or CSRS retirement benefits on the other hand), have both approved, but cannot collect both concurrently.  There is an exception — and that has to do with a “scheduled award”.

While keeping these various benefits conceptually distinct can be rather confusing, it is important to understand the distinctions when contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Considerations Prior to Pursuing SSDI Aggressively

In filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, one must file for SSDI and submit proof of such filing with the Office of Personnel Management at the time of approval of the Federal Disability Retirement application.  For CSRS individuals who file for Federal Disability Retirement, no such filing is required, precisely because the framework of a CSRS retirement/disability retirement is not tied into the Social Security system. 

Remember that, under FERS, when a Federal or Postal Worker files for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, all that is necessary is to fulfill the requirement of “filing” — meaning, that a receipt must be submitted evidencing the filing of an SSDI application.  One does not need an approval or a denial — merely a receipt showing that one has fulfilled the statutory requirement of filing.  Ultimately, of course, the Office of Personnel Management is seeking to discover whether or not the Federal or Postal worker is eligible for SSDI, and if so, that an offset will be triggered.  Because of the possible offset (and the potential repercussions of OPM refusing to reinstate the full FERS Disability Retirement benefits in the event of an SSDI/FERS disability retirement annuitant having reached a status of gainful employment — see my previous blog post), one needs to take into consideration all of the factors, circumstances, future goals and future plans, before one decides to “aggressively” pursue SSDI benefits.  

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Retirement: SSDI & FERS Offset (Continued…)

If a former Federal or Postal employee receives both FERS Disability Retirement annuity, as well as SSDI (with the proper offset), and finds a job, makes sufficient income to exceed the cap for SSDI — to the extent that Social Security finds that he or she is no longer “entitled” to SSDI benefits and suspends SSDI payments:  will the Office of Personnel Management recalculate the FERS Disability Retirement and reinstate the amount which was previously offset, to restore the full FERS Disability Retirement annuity?  The answer:  A number of recent cases have resulted in a “No”.  Petitions and Appeals are in the works. 

The reasoning and rationale of the Office of Personnel Management is that, because the individual is still “entitled” to SSDI benefits, but the benefits have merely been “suspended”, therefore the FERS Disability Retirement annuity is still offset by the “entitled” amount, not by what is actually received.  Pending the outcome of any Petitions for Review and Appeals to the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Federal and Postal Disability Retirement annuitants must be careful in deciding whether or not to actually pursue SSDI.  If one is planning to work at another job, with a reasonable expectation of exceeding Social Security’s cap for employment income, the fact that if one is restored to earning capacity, one’s FERS Disability Retirement may not be allowed to be recalculated to make up for the lost offset, should be taken into consideration.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS Disability Retirement: SSDI & FERS Offset

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement annuitants under FERS were required to file for SSDI as part of the process.  Most Federal and Postal employees who filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, never obtain an approval for SSDI.  This is natural, of course, and is part of the overall “framework” of the interaction between FERS Disability Retirement benefits and SSDI.  FERS Disability Retirement (as well as CSRS Disability Retirement) encourages Federal and Postal Workers to become employed in the private sector, and to become “productive” (translation:  continue to pay more taxes) in some other area of employment. 

Because Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS does not pay a great amount (60% of the average of one’s highest three consecutive years the first year under FERS, and 40% thereafter; a different computation methodology for CSRS employees, who are becoming rarer each year), the paradigm and plan of the Federal payment system for Disability Retirement annuitants had an implicit public policy approach of “encouraging” all such annuitants to find other employment.  Unless, of course, in addition to the FERS Disability Retirement annuity, one became entitled to SSDI payments, in which case the “cap” for income from other employment becomes much, much lower.  Many considerations should be thoughtfully approached when filing for SSDI, including plans for future employment.  Otherwise, some problems may be encountered if the annuitant receives both FERS Disability Retirement benefits, SSDI, and exceeds the cap from other employment.  More to Follow.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire