Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Confusion & Disarray

A state of confusion and disarray can work in either direction; either the confused state of affairs can lead to a successful outcome (resulting from the inability to make a logically correct decision, but where a favorable outcome may randomly occur); or the state of disarray can result in a detrimental consequence, also arising from the state of confusion.  The former is often random in scope; the latter is more predictable.

Reliance on the potentiality that it “may come out right” is normally not the best course of action to take.  As such, if one is confused about a subject, an issue, etc., it is often a wise step to take to consult with someone who can unravel the layers of obfuscation surrounding an issue or circumstance.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, a repetitive thread of frustration heard throughout the process — both in a procedural sense, as well as the underlying substantive approach to completion — is the confusion of the forms themselves, the information needed to prove one’s case, and the necessity of coordination in matters of bureaucratic steps.

The obstacle of confusion and disarray is not one which is merely felt by any unique individual; it is pervasive, and you are “not alone” in the matter.  The fact is, the entire administrative process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is indeed a confusing one, and one fraught with a state of disarray.

It is thus important to approach the entire process with a logical, sequential methodology, in order to find one’s way out of the darkness of a black hole.  The universe may well have all sorts of unexplainable phenomena and voids; the Federal process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits may well be one of them.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Correlation, Correspondence & Causation

How we assert and connect disparate facts reveals the extent of one’s understanding of the conceptual distinctions to be made between correlation, correspondence and causation.

Correlation, in its normative usage, refers to the relationship between two or more things, and will often involve statistical dependence between entities.

Correspondence, on the other hand, will entail the agreement of one or more things with one another, or encapsulate similarities and reflective agreement.  Thus, one may discuss Russell’s and Moore’s “correspondence theory of truth“, for instance, where the proposed argument would involve the “agreement” between what one says, and its reflection upon the objective world which it is attempting to describe.

Causality, as a distinctive concept from the other two Cs, involves the sequential occurrence of one event followed by another, where the second event is accepted as a consequence of the first.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to understand the conceptual distinctions between these words, precisely because the Federal and Postal employee formulating the nexus between one’s medical condition and one’s position description must show the relationship between the two.

Thus, one may argue that a correlation exists between poor performance and one’s medical condition; or one may establish that the corresponding actions on the part of the agency involved references to medical reports and records; or that the position itself caused the exacerbation of the medical condition — although, the latter may be more relevant in a Federal Worker’s Comp case.

In arguing for eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, use of all of the linguistic tools available will provide a decided advantage; but usage must be preceded by understanding, and understanding must involve the careful analysis of the specialized application of conceptual constructs.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: The Measure of Success

What constitutes a compromise from perfection?  The ultimate goal is to attain the height of any endpoint, but at what juncture does one declare a level of satisfaction and determine the necessity of submission?  In any endeavor, one attempts to formulate in the best manner possible.  However, practical considerations — of time constraints, the products which one must work with, and the coordination of efforts with others, all must be taken into account into coming to a completion and fruition.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, one must always understand that the preparatory stage of the process must take into account the pragmatic issues which come up — the extent of time a doctor will take in preparing a Medical Narrative Report; the constraints imposed by the duties of one’s position description; and, of course, time constraints of filing a case in a timely manner.

Formulating one’s Statement of Disability is what often makes the Federal or Postal employee hesitate, as well it should, precisely because the level of perfection which should be reached is important.  This is where the description — the “nexus” — between one’s medical conditions and one’s positional duties, must be described and delineated in such a manner that it is compelling, effective, persuasive and measured by accuracy.  It is the difference between having a professional driver in the seat of a stunt car, and one who has never tried it.

Perfection is a goal; it need not be reached, but the measure of success of often determined by how close one gets to it.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Experience & Secrets

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, there are no “secrets” to the pathway of success (“success” being narrowly defined as receiving an approval from the Office of Personnel Management).

Rather, there is only the experience of knowing the law, applying the law, stating the facts, creating the nexuRs between the medical condition and the positional duties which one occupies with the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service, and understanding the few but important issues which can defeat a Federal Disability Retirement application.

The latter portion, of course, is just as important as the former issues — of knowing the negative consequences of entering certain arenas of issues, despite every temptation to do so. Thus, as have been more thoroughly discussed in previous articles and blogs, focusing upon collateral work-place issues of harassment, discrimination, subsequent EEOC complaints, etc.; of characterization of one’s medical conditions which comes perilously close to being described as “situational”.

Also, some questions concerning accommodations, and especially at the first two stages of the administrative process, where the Office of Personnel Management will often fail to understand the legal distinction between temporary modified duties, and what constitutes a legally viable accommodation — all of these are able to be dealt with through experience and application of that experience.

Very few “secrets” are truly that; rather, the secret to a successful outcome turns out to be rather mundane:  experience, tempered by careful preparation, formulation, and timely filing.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Postal & Federal Disability Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Problem of the Incremental Loss of Time

This short adage has probably been told in the past, but it is nevertheless instructive and applicable:  In a local courthouse, there is a sign on the desk of the clerk which receives and processes pleadings from lawyers and lay litigants, and it states:  “The fact that you have waited until the last minute does not constitute a dire emergency for me”  Now, from the viewpoint of the attorney or lay person who is proceeding pro se, such a preemptive assertion may seem rather cold-hearted; but from the perspective of the clerk, who has seen many such pleas for mercy because of an imminent deadline, it is merely a warning of intolerance.

Time can pass away in incremental aggregates which become days, months; and suddenly, the calendric year has slipped away. This often happens for the Federal or Postal employee who is considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Time becomes delayed in incremental bits of precious bundles, and before you know it, one’s agency has lost any accrued good will or patience, and finances become increasingly more difficult to manage.   Illnesses and medical conditions have a way of suspending time and making such a constraining conceptual construct an irrelevancy; for, if time can be divided in the gauging of events, celebrations, occurrences bifurcated by differentiating responsibilities — i.e., work; chores; weekends; obligations; appointments, etc. — the great equalizer is a medical condition, precisely because whether it is the chronic pain, or a psychiatric condition which impacts one’s focus, concentration, mood, etc., then time becomes a single continuum indistinguishable because everything is concentrated upon overcoming the medical condition.  All that one can do in such a quandary, is to attempt to delay various responsibilities through incremental procrastination.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important not to allow for the problem of incremental loss of time to impede the ability to effectively and properly prepare and file a Federal Disability Retirement case.  Now is the time to inquire, prepare, and begin to plan; for “now” constitutes the stop-gap to the loss of time.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Prospective Affirmation versus Retrospective Correction

Moving forward with the right tools is generally more effective than looking back and trying to correct deficiencies; thus, the age-old adage of being penny wise, pound foolish applies; and in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to make a determination early on to clearly assess the strength of a case, the needs required to optimize such strengths, and to obtain assistance where necessary.

As to an objective assessment of a case:  one is normally not the best evaluator in analyzing the strength or weakness of one’s own Federal Disability retirement case.  This is because of a self-evident principle operating in each such Federal Disability Retirement case:  the subject who suffers from the medical condition cannot objectively evaluate from a third-party’s perspective the viability of a case in terms of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the coherence and compelling nature of the evidence to be presented.

Most believe that his or her case is a “slam-dunk”; few in actual reality ever are.  To get denied by OPM at the First Stage; then at the Reconsideration Stage; then to go pro se before the Merit Systems Protection Board; then to obtain a lawyer — while it is good to get a lawyer at any stage of the process — is it wise to attempt a retrospective correction of one’s mistakes?  At what stage does it become too late?  Where in the process does “correction” override “mistakes”?  Compare that to a prospective affirmation of one’s inadequacies — that it is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively evaluate one’s own case; that an effective compilation and presentation of a Federal Disability Retirement case is necessary in order to win in a Federal Disability Retirement case; and that providing a legal citationin support of one’s case is an essential element of a compelling case:  combining it all, it would seem that being wise for the pound is preferable than being foolish for the penny (to make an inverse adage applicable).

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Pre-Conditional Preparatory Steps

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether a Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS, there are steps to be taken — not only at each “stage” of the administrative process, but moreover, in the weeks and months prior to the actual formulation, compilation and submission of the Standard Forms, documentary support, writing of the Applicant’s Statement, etc.

As a “process”, one may bifurcate the necessary steps into the following:  the pre-conditional stage; the preparatory stage; the time of formulation & actualization; finally, the submission of the disability retirement packet.

In the “pre-conditional” time period, one should focus upon the single most important aspect of a Federal Disability Retirement case — that of garnering, concretizing and establishing the necessary physician-patient relationship, such that there is a clear understanding of what is required of the physician; what the physician expects of the patient; and, wherever and whenever possible, a continuing mutual respect and understanding between the doctor and the patient-applicant.

This is why the Merit Systems Protection Board has explicitly, through case after case, opined upon the preference for “treating” doctors of longstanding tenure.  For, in such a relationship of long-term doctor-patient relationships, a greater ability to assess and evaluate the capabilities and limitations of the patient’s physical, emotional and psychological capacities can best be achieved.

In every “rule”, of course, there are exceptions, and sometimes more “distant” methods of evaluations can be obtained — through OWCP doctors, referee opinions, independent examinations (indeed, one can make the argument that because it is “independent”, therefore it carries greater weight), functional capacity evaluations, etc.

For the most part, however, the cultivation of an excellent physician-patient relationship will be the key to a successful Federal Disability Retirement claim, and as such, the pre-conditional stage to the entire process should be focused upon establishing that solid foundation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Systematic Approach

It is clear from reviewing many of the Federal Disability Retirement applications which have been denied, either at the initial application stage of the process or at the Second, Reconsideration Stage of the process, that the failure to apply a systematic approach in preparing, formulating and filing the Federal Disability Retirement application was entirely lacking.  

The lack of systematically compiling and formulating the evidence to meet the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS can be fatal to one’s efforts.  For, ultimately, it is the nature of the presentation and how it is compiled, delineated and orchestrated which provides for the effective implementation of such an endeavor.

Take the following example:  a “flail” is a farm instrument used for threshing, and in the hands of an experienced user of such equipment, it was an effective tool and implement which systematically cleared a field when in the hands of one who had the experience, knowledge and practical application of such a tool.  Used in modern linguistic terms, the concept, “He was flailing his arms” has come to mean that a person is waving and thrashing about in a manner which lacks harmony, elegance or purposeful end — in a wild and wasteful effort of energy.  

The deliberative approach in preparing and formulating any endeavor in life is an encompassing use of a particular tool in a proper manner, for the purpose for which it was created, to bring about an end for which it was designed, and to preserve the energy necessary to bring about the end in mind.

Preparing, formulating a filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS is to use the flail properly, and not to flail about.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Meticulous Preparation

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, it is important to take the time, effort and care to prepare each element of the application for Federal Disability Retirement with meticulousness.  The term and conceptual implication of the word, “being meticulous” involves precision and the imagery of a methodical approach, of attending to the details and formulating the various aspects of the packet with thoughtful thoroughness.

As a watchmaker who must attend to the minute details of his masterpiece (yes, it is a deliberate pun on using the term “minute” to infer both the idea of size as well as a quantity of time, but pronounced in different ways), it is in the very details of a Federal Disability Retirement case where the battle for approval or denial must be fought. It is often pointed out that ease of effort distinguishes between the professional and the amateur; that the professional makes it all look so easy.  Yet, the amount of preparation and practice which the professional undergoes prior to going on stage, or showing his or her abilities before a watchful crowd, is what the audience does not see.

Similarly, when the Office of Personnel Management reviews a Federal Disability Retirement application and sees how everything logically “fits” together and proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a Federal Disability Retirement application has met all of the legal criteria for an approval, it is the meticulous preparation which has gone into fitting all of the “pieces of the puzzle” together, which provided the foundation for such success.

Like those automobile commercials where precision driving through difficult obstacles ends with the cautionary statement:  “Beware, do not try this on your own, as the drivers in this ad were all professionals”; so it is a similar statement to the Federal or Postal employee who is attempting to formulate a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS:  it is not an easy matter, and meticulous preparation must be taken to formulate the medical, legal, narrative and multitudinous elements necessary to qualify for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: The Issue of Discretion

A Federal or Postal employee who is filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS may also be undergoing concurrent disciplinary proceedings, or engaged in corollary grievances, EEO Complaints, or involved in a lawsuit in a separate forum, either in the Federal Circuit Courts or at the Merit Systems Protection Board.  

In either event, the question often comes to the fore as to whether such collateral issues should be brought up in the Applicant’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A) or perhaps in a legal memorandum or cover letter which argues the merits of the case, the legal basis for eligibility, etc.  The answer to the question as to whether, how and where is one of discretionary choice, and there is never a singular answer.  

A separate question to be asked of one’s self (with no obvious answer) is whether or not, if the applicant who is filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS does not bring up the fact of a collateral issue being litigated in a separate forum, will the Agency bring it up and discuss it in a way detrimental to the Applicant, and further, will the fact that the issues was not brought up make it appear as if the Applicant is somehow trying to hide the issue?  As with all such hypotheticals, the answer to all of the above is:  It all depends…  

Often, not mentioning a potential “red flag” until and unless it becomes a red flag is the best approach.  Sometimes, making a passing reference to the collateral issue may be appropriate.  In all instances, unless a connection can be made between the collateral issue and the issues central to a Federal Disability Retirement application — the medical basis and the impact upon one’s medical inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job — it is normally best to leave it alone.  In any case, such discretionary decisions should be made with the advice of an attorney.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire