Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Discretion, “What Ifs”, Etc.

The anxiety and angst which accompanies the preparation, formulation and filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is on the one hand understandable, and yet, because it is an administrative process which may potentially involve multiple stages, and require investment of an extraordinary amount of time, and because it is requires a rationally-based approach in meeting the legal criteria for approval, it must be viewed and approached with a quietude of professionalism.

There are obviously times when the Statute of Limitations is about to impose some restrictive encroachment of formulation, and thus one must respond appropriately.  And, much of the decision-making process involved in whether to attach X-document, or to include Y-statement, is a discretionary matter — one which should often be left to an OPM Disability Attorney who has had some prior experience in the matter.

But the “what ifs”, as in, “What if I say A” as opposed to “having said B” is something which should be avoided.  Obsessing over singular statements — even if it is true that a denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application could potentially focus upon a statement, characterized in a wrong manner, or taken out of context (as OPM often does) — is normally unproductive.

While most “mistakes” in a Federal Disability Retirement application can be corrected, explained or expanded upon into obsolescence, one thing which cannot be accomplished is to put artificial blinders on OPM in the event that something is stated or submitted which otherwise should not have.  Even if one were to refile at a later date, once a CSA Number is assigned to a case, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management maintains the original documentation which was filed with their office.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Worker Disability Retirement: Responding to a Denial

Preparing, formulating and filing for a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS must necessarily involve the preparation for a response to a denial, issued by the Office of Personnel Management.  To resist and avoid contemplating such a potential event is to disregard an inevitable probability.  

As has been acknowledged before, most Federal and Postal employees believe that his or her Federal Disability Retirement application which has been submitted to the Office of Personnel Management, is a “slam dunk” case; that, because of the severity of the medical condition experienced, and its “obvious” impact upon one’s ability/inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, there is simply no conceivable way in which OPM could deny the application.  But that life only presented a singular perspective on all issues; dictatorial control of all ideas would certainly simplify the world; conceptual certainty without opposing views would make irrelevant the necessity of the entire judicial system.  But that is not how life operates.  

To the question:  What can we do about conflicting ideas?  Is the answer:  That is why there is in place a procedural mechanism which often involves the need for a Judge to render a decision adjudicating the dispute.  Responding to a denial from the Office of Personnel Management is the first step to engaging in the procedural mechanism of the resolution of disputed perspectives.  OPM has their job; the Federal or Postal employee has his or her job to do.  

Whatever the substantive basis for the dispute, what is necessary is first and foremost to respond to the Office of Personnel Management, and before that, to prepare for a denial, and be ready to respond appropriately.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: What If…

In inquiring about Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS from the Office of Personnel Management, the potential applicant who is inquiring about the entire process will often engage in the never-ending, perpetual game of, “What if…”  

The answer to each such question, of course, must always be prefaced with, “Even if…” but each such question and answer can continue ad infinitum until either the questioner comes to exhaust the repertoire of his or her “What if” questions, or the answer to the last what-if question is answered with, “Even if the world ends”.  

This last answer means that it does not matter what comes after the preface; the answer remains the same.  For instance:  What if Social Security approves your case prior to OPM making a decision on a Federal Disability Retirement case — and the medical officer, EAP counselor, Postal or Federal Fitness for Duty physician, or the flight surgeon, or X, Y and Z disqualifies you from your job, and you get separated from service for your medical inability to perform your job…doesn’t that automatically qualify you for Federal Disability Retirement benefits?  No — you must still prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence, and proceed as if none of the previously-cited advantages have been obtained.  

Will all of those advantages help in your case?  Yes.  Will they be determinative?  No.  

While persuasive, such administrative decisions by the agency will not be determinative.  But that doesn’t seem logical — what if, in addition to all of the previous advantages, the Agency comes out and concedes that they cannot accommodate you?  Answer:  Even if the Agency concedes that, you must still prove your case medically, by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Federal or Postal worker:  But What if…   At this point, the answer must be:  Even if the world ends, such administrative agency actions are merely persuasive to OPM, but not determinative.  But why?  

Ah…the “why” question is also a never-ending, perpetual one, and must be saved for another blog.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire