Agency actions separating a Federal or Postal employee from Federal Service often contain language which comes close to allowing for a Federal or Postal employee to assert the “Bruner Presumption” (that legal presumption which essentially states that the declaration and admission by the Agency triggers a legal presumption that a Federal or Postal employee is entitled to, by a matter of law, to Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS), but not close enough.
Such language will instead be couched in references to medical documentation which has been previously reviewed by the Agency; will embrace an acknowledgement that the Federal or Postal employee has a “medical condition”; and will sometimes even entertain verbiage evincing sympathy for the Federal or Postal Worker’s “situation” — but still will base the removal upon other considerations, such as “excessive absences”, “failure to maintain a regular work schedule”, etc.
The question ultimately then becomes: Is it important, leaving aside relevance, to fight the agency to amend or otherwise re-characterize the original proposal to remove, in order to obtain the Bruner Presumption?
The Bruner Presumption is a legal mechanism which gains greater weight and importance when a Federal Disability Retirement application has been denied twice by the Office of Personnel Management (both at the Initial Stage of the process, than at the Reconsideration Stage), and one therefore finds one’s self before an Administrative Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board. But such appearance before the MSPB presumably means that there are other problems with a case — most often, insufficient medical documentation.
The Bruner Presumption aside, the Federal or Postal employee must still prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, one’s case, by submitting sufficient medical documentation. The Bruner Presumption is simply that “extra” ingredient that may be helpful if all other factors have been met in proving a Federal Disability Retirement case.
While helpful, it is not a certainty for an approval. While better to have than not, one must still prove one’s case. While triggered most effectively at the MSPB, a less-than-Bruner-trigger can still be argued at all stages of the process. Just some thoughts.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Agency’s and/or Supervisor’s Actions | Tagged: agency actions against federal employee, arguing for bruner during the termination proposal stages, Bruner v. Office of Personnel Management, civil service disability, compiling additional supporting documentation, disciplinary actions for medical conditions against federal workers, disputing the terms of a federal gov removal action for medical disability, Federal Disability, federal disability retirement, federal non disciplinary actions, FERS disability retirement, how important are the wordings of that removal action from fed job, in bruner the applicant must still submit sufficient evidence, insufficient medical documentation for OPM disability, is it worthy to have the bruner fight?, limitations of the bruner presumption, OPM disability retirement, opm medical documents, owcp disability retirement, Postal disability, postal service disability retirement, proposing change of termination terms to apply bruner presumption, removal action terms and conditions usps job disability, seeking to apply bruner presumption after termination, should I fight and negotiate with my agency's proposal to recognize disability, unfair agency's actions against light duty workers, usps ''disciplinary'' actions, USPS disability retirement, what a disabled fed employee needs to know about bruner | 1 Comment »
