OPM Disability Retirement: Horns & Whistles

Acoustic signaling devices and technological innovations in repackaging information can convey a sense of “newness” and a refreshing sort of alternate sensory perception; however, ultimately, the substantive information which must be presented will require tackling the hard elements of a case.

In presenting a Federal Disability Retirement case to the Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to distinguish between the foundation of the case, as opposed to the “extras” which one may add.  It is like the analogy of the great and master chef who thinks so highly of his or her own skills, that the preparation of the main meal of a course is done without the primary ingredient.  Even the most unrefined and coarse connoisseur can recognize when the steak is missing from a steak dinner.

Thus, in a FERS or CSRS Disability Retirement case, while one’s statement of disability may be persuasive; while “other evidence” by the agency, coworkers, etc. may establish a perspective of medical disability, the foundation of the nexus between one’s medical condition and the positional duties required must be established by the substantive essence of the case — the medical evidence itself.

Don’t mistake the periphery for the center; don’t be fooled by horns and whistles; much noise does not make up for the central requirement in any endeavor.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM FERS/CSRS Disability Retirement: The Law & Life’s Pragmatic Reality

In a Federal Disability Retirement case, one of the ways to establish the nexus between one’s medical condition and the inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, is to show a “service deficiency”. But as most Federal and Postal employees systematically receive satisfactory or higher ratings of workplace appraisals, and are passed through without thought in order for managers and supervisors to avoid contentiousness and adversarial encounters with their employees, it is rare that anyone can show poor performance and tie such a service deficiency to one’s medical condition.

Does one need to go to the supervisor and point out the service deficiencies and ask that the supervisor rate him or her as sub-par?  No.

Does one have to grieve or contest a superior appraisal?  Again, the answer is, No.

The intersecting contradiction between law and life often manifests itself in such circular absurdities.  But how the law is read; the knowledge of a myopic understanding of the law without the greater context of the entirety of the evolution of case-law opinions and further expansive interpretation of the originating statute, can leave one to believe that the law makes no sense, and fails to reflect the pragmatic issues of reality.

Hint:  Most Federal and Postal employees do not have a service deficiency; but since Federal Disability Retirement rules, regulations and statutes require that one’s medical condition must last for a minimum of 12 months, does that mean that one must show a devastation of one’s work ethic for a full year before you can even file?  No.

The conflict between law and the pragmatic reality of life is merely an apparent one; once the truth is unraveled, there really is no conflict at all, internal, apparent, or otherwise, and Medical Retirement applications submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, in fact reflects the reality of life quite well.  One needs to merely figure out and think away any such apparent self-contradiction.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Early Medical Retirement for Disabled Federal Workers: Accuracy & Creativity

Accuracy and creativity are not mutually exclusive approaches; one often thinks that the former relates to more ‘technical’, non-fiction genres, while the latter encompasses the areas of fiction and similar writings.  But being scrupulously accurate while describing an event in ‘creative’ terms can go hand-in-hand.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Employee Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, one should not feel constrained in properly and fully expressing one’s medical condition and its impact upon one’s ability/inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s position within the agency, based upon either the questions posed by the Applicant’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A both for FERS and CSRS employees), or by the admonition that technical accuracy is paramount.  Of course, truth should always be the guide; but where subjectivity must necessarily be an element present throughout one’s descriptive attempt at conveying the nexus between the medical condition, the position description, and the impact one has upon the other, the reluctance to use descriptive adjectives should not be a constraining element.

In formulating one’s case, one should be creative and forceful in describing the profound impact of one’s medical condition upon one’s life.  On the other hand, brevity and succinctness are characteristics which are often most effective; but that is another story altogether.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Worker Disability Retirement: Always Returning to the Basics

It is always important to return to basics when considering the option of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS or CSRS, from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Just as we are all well-aware of the concepts of a “return to nature”, or going “back to our roots” — such fashionable sayings remind us of the need and the necessity of embracing the foundational virtues which make up any endeavor or activity — so it is with a return to basics in a Federal Disability Retirement case.

Whether it concerns the issue of the medical condition itself; the issue of accommodations; whether “light duty” or “modified duties” have been offered; whether there are EEOC issues, work harassment, Performance Improvement Plans initiated; whether one is being presented with a Proposed Removal based upon factors other than one’s physical or psychiatric inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job — all such issues must draw a line directly to the basic component of:  How does it impact the performing of the essential elements of my job?  Thus is the nexus created; thus does one go back to the basic components of a Federal Disability Retirement case.

While such an approach may not return us back to nature, it will provide a framework for a successful OPM Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire