Federal Worker Disability Retirement: The Bureaucracy

Most people, organizations and entities do not act with deliberate ill-intentions; rather, they fail to think, and actions emanating from thoughtlessness often constitutes the negation of good.  Bureaucratization often results in the unintended consequence of negating the good; for, in following a set pattern and algorithm of administrative procedures, consideration for individual circumstances cannot be excepted.

One can argue, of course, for the positive aspects of a bureaucracy — of the equal treatment of all; of applying the same standards and criteria across the board, regardless of individual needs; and there is certainly something to be said for expunging the capacity for human favoritism.  But bias and favoritism will always pervade; it will merely take on a more insidious form.

For the Federal and Postal Worker who is suffering from a medical condition such that the medical condition is impacting one’s ability to perform the essential elements of one’s job, encountering the bureaucratic process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will become a necessary evil to confront.

The key to a successful interaction with the administrative process will be to reach beyond the faceless bureaucracy, and to make relevant one’s own particular and unique facts and circumstances.  That is a tall order to face, in the face of a faceless bureaucracy.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Complexity & the Law

The complaint heard most prevalent is that the “law” is deliberately complicated for the benefit of lawyers, and to the detriment of the lay person.  That is the one of the points which Dickens makes in his work, Bleak House — a lengthy work which meticulously follows the probate of a contested will, where the lawyers involved appear to be the only beneficiaries of the central litigation. But that only tells one side of a story.  

Complexities in any issue surface because of lack of clarity; and lack of clarity manifests itself as each case brings to the forefront questions and concerns previously unspoken or uncontested.  As an example — the issue in Stephenson v. OPM, where the U.S. Office of Personnel Management refused to recalculate one’s FERS Disability Retirement annuity even though the annuitant was no longer receiving SSDI benefits, because OPM interpreted the word “entitled” in a unique and perverse manner — could have been left alone without litigation, and therefore allowed to remain a simple matter.  

This had been going on for decades.  But somebody — Mr. Stephenson in particular — decided that OPM’s actions were unfair, and that it needed to be litigated.  Did it complicate matters?  Complexity is an inherent part of the law, and as issues become contested, the evolution of a body of law can expand into a compendium of complexity.  

It is no different with Federal Disability Retirement.  Yes, Federal Disability Retirement law is a complex body of administrative issues; it requires expertise; but if it was left alone, you can be assured that OPM would step over, on, and around many more Federal and Postal Workers who are otherwise eligible and entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits. That is why complexity can go both ways — for the agency, but also for the Federal or Postal employee.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Great Expectations

The title of this blog, borrowed (of course) from Dickens’ great novel, refers to the contrast between the reality of X and the mental projection of what should be, in the mind of an individual.

What does this have to do with filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS?  When an application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS is carefully prepared, meticulously gathered, painfully delineated, and thoughtfully prepared, one has the (logical) expectation that, when it is reviewed and evaluated by the Office of Personnel Management, that a certain minimal level of intellectual discourse would be engaged in.

In other words, it should not be an unrealistic expectation that, if it is denied or disapproved, that the person who is writing the letter of denial would provide some fundamental delineation of reasons; some intellectual discussion addressing certain aspects of the Federal Disability Retirement packet; even (God forbid) a revelation of some logical discourse with a legally viable basis in making an argument.

Alas, such an expectation would be too much to bear.  The great chasm between the reality of the process and the expectation which one has, is one which will lead only to disappointment.  If a denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application comes, it is a rare event that the Office of Personnel Management engages in any justifiable discussion.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire