CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: The Treating Doctor

There is efficacy and motivational bias.  Sometimes, unintended consequences result in the coalescence of both, but where the result is unaffected by the underlying reason for acting upon an event.

In OWCP cases, the motivational bias almost always includes the intent of the Department of Labor to try and save money, and to steer the injured worker to undergo treatment (if one can call it that) and oversight with one of “the company” doctors who can quickly declare a person to be healed and ready for return to full-time duty, despite protestations of pain, discomfort and limitation of movement, all to the contrary.

It is no accident that the ever-present Worker’s Comp Nurse who infringes upon the patient-doctor relationship by imposing her presence upon each visit, agrees whole-heartedly with any such assessment of full recovery, and ignores the pleas of the patient/OWCP benefit-recipient.

By contrast, those who are filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, are encouraged to speak with their longstanding treating doctors, as opposed to merely going to a doctor whose motivational bias may stem from the source of one’s payment.

Treating doctors who have a long tenure of doctor-patient relationships have little underlying motivation to do anything but look out for the best interests of the patient.  If Disability Retirement is the best course, then that will be what the treating doctor will support.  It is ultimately the relationship that has been established over the many years, which makes for all the difference.  And that difference is worth its incalculable weight in gold.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement (for US Federal Employees): Administering Treatment versus Administrative Functions

Doctors rarely have any problems with administering treatment based upon clinical encounters and subjective narratives from their patients; yet, when it comes to providing a medical report and performing similar administrative functions, the sudden pause, hesitation, and sometimes outright refusal, is rather puzzling, if not disconcerting.

Such trepidation from the doctor can obviously result in a difficult wall for purposes of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS.

For, much of medical evaluation, diagnosis, prognosis and prescribing of treatment encompasses receipt of subjective responses from the patient:  where the pain is present; the nature and extent of the pain; the history and chronicity of manifested symptoms; even functional capacity evaluations must necessarily be an observation of the subjective actions & reactions of the participant.  Of course, there are often distinguishable “objective” factors — swelling; carcinogenic versus benign tumors; broken bones, etc.

On the other hand, even MRIs and other diagnostic tools reveal only that X exists — not that X results in symptom Y.  An example would be a bulging disc — while the abnormality itself may show up on an MRI, whether the individual experiences any pain from the abnormality may differ from subject to subject.

This is why, despite the willingness of a doctor to treat based upon most factors being “subjective” in nature, it becomes a puzzle why the same doctor shows an unwillingness to write a report stating that, because of the medical conditions for which patient M is being treated, one must necessarily conclude that he or she cannot perform essential elements X, Y and Z of his or her job.

It is the jump from treatment-to-disability-determination which is often problematic for the treating doctor.  All of a sudden, the excuses flow:  “I am not trained to make such determinations”; “There is no objective basis for your pain” (then why have you been treating me for over a decade and prescribing high levels of narcotic pain medications?); “I can’t say whether you can or cannot do your job”; and many other excuses.

The switch from administering treatment, to treating administrative matters, is one fraught with potential obstacles.  How one approaches the treating doctor will often determine whether such obstacles can be overcome — and whether one’s Federal Disability Retirement application can be successfully formulated.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Family Doctor

One characteristic that people normally do not observe in medical doctors, is one of lack of confidence.  For, confidence, knowledge, direction, advice and assertiveness — those are the “bedside manners” which we expect from a medical doctor to whom we approach for treatment of our maladies.  

Yet, in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, often the “Family Doctor”, or otherwise identified as the Primary Care Physician or General Practitioner, will declare that he or she cannot make a disability determination because of being either ill-equipped, or because they do not possess the “speciality” of knowledge in making such a determination.  

Often, the doctor will rely upon a Functional Capacity Evaluation, and will insist that such an evaluation be performed prior to rendering his or her medical opinion on the matter of one’s capability, capacity, and ability to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job in preparing and formulating a medical narrative report for a Federal Disability Retirement application.  This, despite the obvious advantages already obtained in the course of many years of treatment of the Federal or Postal employee, the most important of which:  an intimate knowledge, gained through clinical examination and contact over the years, of the medical conditions of the patient, including the extent, severity and chronicity of the medical condition(s); as well as the consistency of complaints and review of radiological reports, the direct clinical contact with the patient, etc.  

Often, such lack of confidence is merely one of not understanding what a FERS or CSRS Disability Retirement application requires — and it is the job of either the patient or, if represented, with the assistance of the federal attorney, to clearly and concisely explain the process, the requirements, and why the family doctor is best qualified to provide a detailed medical narrative report explaining why the Federal or Postal employee is unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.  

Marcus Welby, M.D. aside, the general practitioner is still the best source of information and proof in meeting the legal criteria in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under either FERS or CSRS (and if you failed to understand the reference, you are much younger than the writer of this blog).

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: Are all Doctors Necessary?

In a Federal Disability Retirement case under FERS or CSRS, is it necessary to obtain the medical opinion of each and every doctor for each and every medical condition listed on the Applicant’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A)?  To put the question in another way, Must there be a one-to-one correspondence between the medical condition listed or described, and the doctor who is specifically treating the medical condition

Certainly, in today’s world of medicine, where specialization is the key to treatment because of the complexity of each field of medicine and the successful treatment of diseases and medical conditions, it has become a fact of life that patients are “referred out” to various specialists.  Thus, the Primary Care Physician is often merely the “gate-keeper” of referrals, coordinating the medical treatment of a patient by overseeing the referrals to various specialists who treat various medical conditions. An applicant for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS who must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his or her eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, must submit substantiating medical documentation to prove his or her entitlement.  As with all such questions, the answer is, “It depends”.  A one-to-one correspondence is not necessarily required; where helpful, of course, the referral specialist’s medical opinion should be used.  However, one should never underestimate the importance and force of the coordinating physician — the Primary Care Physician himself/herself.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire