Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: An Altered Life of Habituation

Loss of stature and status can come in many forms; we think too often in terms of financial status, of material belongings, where we live, with whom we associate, and the subtle evaluation of social consciousness in relation to our neighbors, friends and family.  But as work constitutes a majority of the time we expend, we often fail to understand the profound impact that we subconsciously place upon the status and standing we perceive within the employment arena.  This is closely related to the conceptual viability of bifurcating our “time at work” and “closing the door behind us” when we exit our place of employment, get into the car, and begin the commute home.

More and more, of course, the traditional dichotomy between work and personal life has been destroyed with the intrusive nature of email, smart phones, laptops and the constant need to keep in communication via electronic media.  The sanctity of the home life is deteriorating; weekends are merely interludes of a slower pace of work; and Sundays are rarely categorized as days of unreachable separateness.

With all traditional social and employment walls disintegrated, it becomes all the more profoundly insidious when one’s employment is severely impacted by a medical condition.

For Federal and Postal employees who must consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the change from the status of “Federal employee” or “Postal Worker” to one of “Disability annuitant” can have a devastating psychological impact. For, in the end, it is not merely a change of status and stature; it is a profound alteration of a way of life, arrived at through habituation without thought, mindlessly embracing the insidiousness of technological intrusions which we never asked for and rarely sought.

The negative view for the Federal and Postal Worker is to myopically observe this profound change in sadness; the positive outlook is to have a fresh perspective, and to actually take the opportunity to use the time for rehabilitation of one’s health, perhaps just to be able to — for a brief moment in the history of one’s life — stop and smell the proverbial flower on the way out of the office door.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Avoiding the Streets of London Past

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is a serious matter. There are often whispering lamentations about individuals “gaming” a system, or somehow taking deliberate “advantage” of a compensatory program in place, targeted for specific needs.  Of course, there will always be those few individuals who are caught manipulating an inherent weakness in an administrative process; but the fact that there may be a minority of negatives does not betray the compendium of positives within any given system.

OPM Disability Retirement, in the end, is one of the most thoughtfully enacted systems within the greater universe of Federal programs.

First, it is narrowly targeted with great specificity — to Federal and Postal Workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents them from performing one or more of the “essential” elements of their positional duties.

Second, it requires a minimum eligibility requirement, both in substantive terms as well as procedural:  the FERS Federal employee must have a minimum of 18 months of Federal Service; the CSRS Federal employee must have a minimum of 5 years of Federal Service; and the condition must last for at least 12 months (this latter requirement does not mean that the Federal or Postal employee must be unable to work at all for 12 months, but merely that the treating doctor must be able to state, within reasonable medical probability, that the medical condition will last for a minimum of 12 months).

And, third, it does not penalize the Federal or Postal Worker from remaining productive in a second, alternative vocation.  The Federal and Postal Worker who receives a Federal Disability Retirement annuity is allowed to go into the private sector and make up to 80% of what one’s former Federal or Postal position currently pays, in addition to the receipt of the annuity.  Thus, in essence, it is a “self-paying” system in that it allows for the annuitant to pay “back into” the system, thereby maintaining the viability of the entire Federal Disability Annuity program for future applicants and annuitants.

It is rare among Federal Programs because of its thoughtful approach and well-planned process, as well as being successful in its outcome and current workings.

For critics who attempt to savage all such compensatory programs in an indiscriminate manner by pointing to weaknesses in the system, the following should be noted: the American Society long ago wisely decided to avoid the London streets of Dickens’ universe, where human debris of homelessness and poverty prevailed on the streets of a city now gone, and instead attempted to create a more caring and empathetic civilization.

Until and critic suffers from the devastation of a medical condition, you never quite know what it is like to be in the shoes of that Federal or Postal employee who daily toils to try and work, but cannot because of the progressively deteriorating disability which has devastated life, hope, and dreams of a better tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Embracing Progress toward Better Conditions

Federal Disability Retirement from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is indeed based upon a progressive paradigm.  It not only recognizes that an individual may be disabled from a particular kind of job; but, moreover, it allows and encourages the Federal or Postal employee to plan for the future, and to seek a way of starting a new vocation in a different field, without penalizing the former Federal or Postal employee by taking away the Federal disability annuity.

There are maximum limits to the paradigm — such as the ceiling of earning up to 80% of what one’s former position currently pays. But to be able to earn up to 80% of what one’s former position currently pays, while at the same time retaining the ability to continue to receive the disability annuity, is far different than the paradigm presented under SSDI or OWCP.

Further, because there is a recognition that one’s medical disability is narrowly construed to one’s Federal or Postal position, or any similar job, the restrictions placed upon the “type” of job a Federal or Postal annuitant may seek, is fairly liberally defined.  Yes, both types of positions should not require the identical physical demands if such demands impact the same anatomical basis upon which one’s Federal Disability Retirement benefits were approved for; but, even in such circumstances, one has the right to argue that the extent of repetitive work, if qualitatively differentiated, may allow for a similar position in the private sector.

Compare that to OWCP, where one cannot work at any other job while receiving temporary total disability benefits from the Department of Labor.  Ultimately, Federal Disability Retirement allows for the Federal or Postal employee to plan for the future; and that, in and of itself, is worth its weight in gold.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: The Progressive Paradigm

Ultimately, Federal Disability Retirement is one of the most progressive paradigms designed — for, as a compensatory program, it not only allows for, but encourages, the Federal or Postal worker to become a self-paying entity by working at another job, a new vocation, a different career, etc, after being approved for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, thereby allocating taxes in order to pay for the annuity itself.

The fact that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management may sometimes and randomly inquire as to the continuing disability status of the (former) Federal or Postal employee, or require an annual check upon the previous year’s income earnings in order to determine if the individual has exceeded the allowable ceiling of 80% of what one’s former position currently pays, is a fairly easy threshold to meet.

Because the focus is upon the particular kind of job which the Federal or Postal employee had previously engaged in, it is natural that any job which the (former) Federal or Postal employee would seek and obtain, would have some qualitative and substantive differences from the Federal or Postal job.

At the same time, however, the skills which the Federal or Postal worker obtained and applied while working for the Federal government, need not be completely abandoned.  There just needs to be a medical justification as to why the individual is able to work in a private-sector job X, as opposed to the Federal job from which he or she medically retired from.

Often, it is a good idea to get the green light from one’s treating doctor, before accepting the private sector job, which would then establish the medical distinctions necessary to justify and answer any future OPM inquiry.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire