The question is often asked as to whether there is an adverse or detrimental impact upon a Federal Disability Retirement application if the Agency or the U.S. Postal Service initiates an adverse action, places an individual on AWOL, or administers a similar type of administrative sanction, action, etc.
The general answer is that such agency actions will not prevent or influence the prevention of a Federal Disability Retirement application from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, but such a generalized answer contains within the “details” certain implicit assumptions — the primary one being, that the medical support which would accompany such a medical retirement will be strong enough to withstand and effectively refute such an adverse action.
By “supporting medical documentation” is meant, at a minimum, two issues which the treating doctor of the applicant must address: That, prior to separation from Federal Service, the Federal or Postal employee could no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, and further, that the medical condition is expected to last for at least 12 months.
Additionally, a third element would also be helpful — that the medical condition or disability began before the adverse action, or conversely, that the behavior or acts of the Federal or Postal Disability Retirement applicant which precipitated the adverse response of the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service occurred after the origination point of the medical condition, and such an origination point can be ascertained.
This is because OPM will sometimes argue that the underlying motivation and purpose of the Federal or Postal applicant filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits was based not upon the medical condition, but because of the adverse action. Further, the Merit Systems Protection Board has stated that such circumstantial evidence of underlying motive or intent can indeed be reviewed. Rebuttal of such implied intent can best be proven by a doctor’s assertion.
Motives are a peculiar thing, but the casting of such underlying motives are often difficult to refute, unless a timeline of facts can counter them. Motives are found only in the depths of one’s consciousness; and like the air we breath, the fact that we assert its existence does not necessarily prove otherwise, especially if the doubter is receptive to the poisonous whispers of finger-pointing.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Agency’s and/or Supervisor’s Actions | Tagged: accepting opm disability clients all across america, agency actions against federal employee, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, disciplinary actions for medical conditions against federal workers, Federal Disability, federal disability law blog, federal disability retirement, federal non disciplinary actions, FERS disability retirement, impending adverse actions against the disabled federal employee?, opm disability abuse of power adverse actions, OPM disability retirement, opm disability retirement is not about the supervisor but about the applicant's disability, owcp disability retirement, Postal disability, postal service actions against the postal worker, postal service disability retirement, responding to revengeful supervisors in the us postal service, supervisor's statements and defamation, the bottom line of a fers disability claim is what the doc says, the importance of supporing medical documentation for a postal disability application, the underlying motivation of an agency's adverse actions against the disabled employee, unfair agency's actions against light duty workers, usps ''disciplinary'' actions, USPS disability retirement, what the doctor says is much more important than what the supervisor | Leave a comment »
Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: SF 3112B
It is amazing how a Supervisor’s Statement is completed. Normally, it is completed without much thought; sometimes, it is completed with too much thought (and self-protective, CYA language concerning how much effort the agency attempted in “accommodating” the employee, when in fact little or no effort was made); more often than not, there is a last, parting shot at the employee — some unnecessary “dig” which often contradicts other portions of the statement; and, finally, every now and then, the Supervisor’s Statement is completed in the proper manner, with forethought and truthfulness.
Fortunately, the Office of Personnel Management rarely puts much weight on a Supervisor’s Statement in making a determination on a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS — unless there is some glaring statement of a deliberate attempt to undermine the Application. This is rare, because it is a medical disability retirement, not a Supervisor’s disability retirement — meaning, that it is the medical opinion, not the opinion of a Supervisor, which is (and should be) most important.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: OPM Disability Actors - The Supervisor, OPM Disability Application - SF 3112B Supervisor’s Statement for CSRS and FERS, OPM Disability Process - 1st Stage: OPM Disability Application | Tagged: assessment for postal disability retirement from supervisor, can the opm take seriously the integrity of federal supervisors?, cases where a federal employee is denied light duty, completing the sf 3112b with integrity, csrs disability benefits, cya philosophy in postal management, documentation in support of the disability retirement application - 3112b, don't always count with the support of an agency supervisor, ethical issues when filing the 3112b form, federal disability retirement, federal supervision bullying even in the opm disability application, federal supervisor response to employee work injury, fers disability application supervisor comments, FERS disability retirement, fers federal government disability retirement, filing a supervisor's opm statement with care and integrity, financial compensation for injured or ill federal workers, how much thought and effort put on the sf 3112b, how the sf 3112b should be filled out, if the supervisors tells lies in the opm disability application, injured light limited duty supervisor or 204b, injured postal workers at the mercy of their supervisors, more on the opm disability application supervisor's statements, neutralizing negative statements from supervisor's statements in sf 3112b, opm disability abuse of power adverse actions, opm disability and the supervisor who says everything's fine, opm disability annuity, OPM disability retirement, opm supervisor statement disability retirement, Postal management and supervisor positions, representing federal employees from any us government agency, responding to revengeful supervisors in the us postal service, SF 3112B Supervisor’s Statement, supervisor's statements and defamation, the 3112b should not be used as a means to get even with the employee, the challenge of ethical behavior in the federal workplace, the effortless sf 3112b, the injured federal worker and the unfair supervisor, the perception of accommodation among federal supervisors, the postal service supervisors and their claim of support, the revenge of a postal supervisor, the usual cya philosophy from the federal employment "leaders", unsympathetic federal supervisors and the plight of the injured federal worker, USPS disability retirement, usps supervisors and their impact on the postal employee's disability, usps workers who retire with a disability, when supervisors don't notice any medical condition in federal worker, when the supervisor files the form with fairness and balance, why the sf 3112b matters less than the doctor's statements, your supervisor and federal disability retirement | 1 Comment »