Federal Worker Disability Retirement: Effective Repetition

Repetition is an effective tool in any writing forum, if the audience to whom such repetitive tools are directed, is taken into account.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the repetitive restatement of specific medical conditions, the symptoms exhibited and manifested over the years, the impact upon certain elements of both one’s positional duties and daily living activities from the medical conditions themselves, etc. — all can be effectively stated throughout the Federal Disability Retirement application itself.

For, repetition can also produce the appearance of consistency; and when the same or similar phrase or concept is repeated in different documents — in the applicant’s statement of disability; in the doctor’s narrative reports; in the Supervisor’s Statement; in the medical office notes and progress notes; such repetition reveals a consistency of terms, which reflects a reality of chronicity as to the state, severity, and nature of the medical condition and its impact upon one’s ability or inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, which is what must be proven in a Federal Disability Retirement application.

That is why the order and sequence of what to write, when to write it, and what to wait for before writing one’s Applicant’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A) is important.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Logistics, Strategy and Substantive Paradigm

In any and every endeavor, whether on a large scale or of little consequential impact, a tripartite approach must be devised:  the logistics of the case (the “how” and the mundane mechanics of procedural actions involved); the strategy of it (the methodological plan of action, involving the choice of which issues to prioritize and tackle, etc.), and finally, the substantive paradigm of the case.

It is often the latter which is overlooked, precisely because everyone is always too busy trying to immediately figure out what to do and how to do it.  In a pragmatic sense, the logistical plan and the strategic outlay are crucial in any legal action; as a persuasive foundation for winning, however, devising a substantive paradigm of a case may be the essence of a winning path.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the Federal or Postal employee who encounters the myriad of voluminous standard forms to be filled out, the need to obtain medical reports and records, and to simply survive the morass of administrative and bureaucratic requirements, leaves one merely attempting to stay afloat in the logistical mandates — of trying to satisfy all of the Agency demands and requirements.

Additionally, to even contemplate devising a “strategy” of how to go about proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, one’s Federal Disability Retirement case, becomes an obstacle and a burden, especially when one is having to deal with the medical condition and treatment of that condition concurrently with the stress of trying to complete a Federal Disability Retirement application.

As for the substantive paradigm of a case?  That may be the customary casualty of a Federal Disability Retirement case — that coordination of all issues, of the medical, the position one occupies, the persuasive legal argumentation, in a compendium of interconnected sources, arguing to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management the what, where, why and irrefutable how, in a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Is the Doctor in, Please?

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, the support of one’s treating doctor is essential in putting together an effective presentation to the Office of Personnel Management.  Sometimes, even doctors have to be reminded of his or her “obligation” to a patient.  When, how, and in what manner of approaching the doctor, is a discretionary element of the process best left up to the patient.  

The reason why the “treating doctor”, as delineated by cases and opinions rendered by Administrative Judges at the Merit Systems Protection Board and by Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, is the best one to provide a clinical assessment and evaluation of one’s ability or inability, and the extent thereof, of performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, is that the long-term relationship that has been (or should have been) established over these many years of treatment, is a foundational basis of being able to ascertain the abilities, capabilities, and limitations of the patient’s physical, emotional and mental condition. 

If a treating doctor hides behind the excuse of saying that he or she is not “equipped” to make a disability determination, or that there are doctors “out there” who specialize in disability determinations, and he/she is not one of them, an explanatory discussion should be engaged in with the doctor, which should include at least the following three (3) elements:  (1)  A reminder of the history of the doctor-patient relationship, (2) that your particular doctor is the one who knows the intimate details of your medical conditions and the history of treatment engaged in, and (3) that such administrative headaches resulting in obtaining Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management is a vital part of the long and recuperative process that the doctor has been trying to attain.  

Ultimately, it is the treating doctor who is the best one to render an opinion as to whether a Federal or Postal employee whom the doctor is treating, can continue to perform all of the essential elements of one’s particular job.  The question then is, Is the doctor in?  Meaning:  Is the doctor still going to “be there” when it really counts?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Paper Presentation

As with most things in life, it is helpful to understand the “context” of an event, an occurrence or a process.  In the context of preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, it is important to understand that this is essentially a “paper presentation” to an agency which processes thousands of such similar applications, assigned to a person who has a name and (if you are lucky) a voice over the telephone.  

Unless it it denied twice (first at the Initial Stage of the Process, then at the “Reconsideration Stage” of the process), there will be very little direct interaction between the OPM Representative assigned to evaluating and determining a Federal or Postal worker’s Federal Disability Retirement application) and the Applicant.  Even at the Merit Systems Protection Board, the “human interaction” will be limited over the telephone.  

Thus, the underlying “context” of a Federal Disability Retirement application is a “Paper Presentation” of a case.  This is not a criticism of the process — indeed, if one stops and reflects upon it, it may be the fairest methodology of undertaking such a process, precisely because it excludes the possibility of favoritism, of bias in favor of personalities or persuasive personal appearance and presentation.

Instead, it is presented to the determiner of the Federal Disability Retirement application based upon the “cold facts” as described and delineated on paper.  Thus, a certain sense of “objectivity” is arrived at because of the very limitations imposed by a paper presentation.  Understanding this contextual foundation is useful and helpful in making sure that the efforts expended should be focused upon acquiring the best evidence in order to formulate such a paper presentation — to include making sure that the presentation itself is professional, crisp, streamlined, and not filled with a lot of superfluous niceties.  

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: A Proper Sense of Objectivity

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS & CSRS, one might ask the legitimate question as to why a “proper sense of objectivity” is even necessary, given the obvious fact that:  A.  The applicant is identical to the person whom the application is about and B.  

From the Merit Systems Protection Board cases touching upon the types of evidence which the Office of Personnel Management is required to accept and review, subjective evidence of pain is acceptable and must be considered.  While both of these statements (A & B) are true, the problem comes about when the focus of the discussion concerning the basis and reasons for granting of a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS are without a proper discussion of the medical conditions which should be discussed in the medical reports and records themselves.

This is where the bridge between the applicant’s own narrative of the medical condition and a proper perspective and balance of a discussion concerning the medical evidence being submitted, is often lost when the applicant for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is unrepresented, and is therefore one and the same as the person who is preparing the application.  

Some sense of emotion is never harmful; some sense of passion and strength of conviction is certainly preferable; too much of the “I” will, however, often result in the loss of the proper sense of objectivity in the formulation of a Federal Disability Retirement application under either FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Objectivity

In filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, a level of objectivity in making one’s case is a goal which must always be in the purview of formulating an application.  If a Federal or Postal Worker is attempting to formulate and prepare a FERS or CSRS disability retirement application without the assistance or representation of an OPM Disability Attorney, this becomes a difficult task — for the identity of the person making the affirmative argument for approval of a Federal Disability Retirement application is the same person who is describing the medical condition, the impact upon one’s Federal or Postal job, and the legal reasons why such an application under FERS or CSRS should be approved.  

There are methods to avoid the appearance of “self-promotion” — a term which may not seem applicable to formulating a FERS or CSRS disability retirement application, but one which simply cannot be avoided completely. For, representation and being a proponent for one’s “cause” — however valid, and however arguably sustainable — nevertheless necessarily may imply a self-interest which engenders self-promotion.  If a Federal or Postal employee insists upon formulating, preparing and submitting an application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS without proper representation, then one’s focus should be upon an “objective” basis — what the medical reports, narratives, diagnostic tests, psychological tests, etc., reveal, and to attempt to discuss such medical documentation in an objective, independent and dispassionate manner.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire