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

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: The Benefit Needs No Apology

A Federal Disability Retirement annuity under FERS or CSRS allows one to receive an annuity because the Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.  

Under FERS, while the Federal or Postal employee is required to apply for SSDI to determine if one is concurrently eligible for that benefit (and, if one is, to have an offset between SSDI and FERS), most Federal and Postal employees fail to qualify for SSDI precisely because he or she is not “totally disabled” (the general legal standard for SSDI eligibility), but merely unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s particular Federal or Postal job.  

This allows for two consequential benefits which help both the society at large as well as the individual Federal or Postal employee:  It allows the individual to have the necessary time for recuperation and healing from one’s medical conditions, and further, it provides for the former Federal or Postal employee to seek other employment in the private sector, and be able to make up to 80% of what one’s former Federal or Postal position currently pays.

Thus, many Federal Disability Retirement annuitants go on to become employed, productive and tax-paying individuals, contributing to the very tax-base which pays for the Federal Disability Retirement annuity.  It is, in many ways, a “pay-as-you-go” system, and is self-sustaining precisely because it is not purely benefit-dependent, but has a great percentage of benefit-recipients actually paying back into the system.  

As a social policy, it is an inherently intelligent system, and requires no apologies for its intelligent design.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Logic versus Pragmatic Social Policy

In a Federal Circuit Court case a few years ago, a dissenting opinion concerning Federal Disability Retirement benefits argued that it was “contrary to logic” to allow for Federal or Postal employees to become eligible for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS if they have been accorded light duty and allowed to remain in his or her official position while not performing many of the essential elements of the job.  

The “logic” which is argued here is based upon the paradigm that, so long as one is allowed to continue to work and receive a paycheck, one should not be considered “disabled”.  But such an argument refuses to acknowledge both the law (under the Bracey v. OPM decision), as well as good economic and social policy.  

The fact is that under Federal Disability Retirement rules, laws and case-laws, what the Administrative Judges and Courts have acknowledged is that a Federal or Postal worker should not be subjected to the arbitrary whims and actions of a single supervisor or Agency; instead, there should be a criteria upon which a Federal or Postal worker should be able to rely upon.  That objective criteria is in essence as follows:   A Federal or Postal worker should have to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job.  If not, that Federal or Postal worker is deemed “disabled” under the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  

While an Agency may allow for light duty, or temporary assignments, such light duty or temporary assignments should not preclude the obvious fact that the Federal or Postal worker continues to remain disabled.  This way, there is an objective criteria of the law to be followed, which cannot be altered based upon the arbitrary whim of a Supervisor or an Agency, who may come along a year later and disallow all light duties or temporary assignments.  Thus, in this case, the social and economic policy as envisioned under the Federal Disability Retirement rules, regulations and laws, are not only pragmatic, but logical.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire