Federal Gov. and USPS Disability Retirement: Expectations

Expectations are peculiar anticipatory states of being; based upon an accurate assessment of factual considerations, they can comport with a true sense of reality; dependent upon an unrealistic foundation of pure desire and want, it can lead to a devastating loss of trust.  In order to avoid unrealistic expectations, it is necessary to evaluate and assess, as much as possible, facts from past experience, objective present circumstances, and projection of fairly accurate intuitions for the future.

For Federal and Postal workers contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, a realistic expectation as to all aspects and corridors of the benefit itself is necessary in order to survive the entirety of the administrative and bureaucratic ordeal.

From evaluating the strength of one’s medical support, to the ability to convey a persuasive argument and case to an agency which reviews tens of thousands of Federal Disability Retirement cases; from a realistic timeframe of the entire process from start to finish; to financial considerations and future earnings potential and whether one can work in another job or vocation.  All such considerations should be evaluated and discussed.

In the end, however, the Federal employee who is contemplating filing for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement benefits often is confronted with limited choices: to continue working under the same conditions, that is, doing with the same tasks in the same Federal occupation (normally not an option, and that is why Federal Disability Retirement is considered in the first place); to walk away without filing for disability retirement benefits (almost never an option — self-evidently so); or filing for disability retirement benefits (the necessary option, and why it is being considered in the first place).

It is the expectations which often dismay, however, and it is a good idea to keep that animal in a cage of realistic assessments.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Time as a Valued Commodity

At what juncture in the course of human lives the linear progression of “time” on a continuum of history became of prominence, philosophers, psychologists and historians may differ.  Certainly, animals are aware of the general importance of seasons; daylight and nightfall mark bifurcations of being alerted for purposes of seeking refuge against predators, as daytime dangers are quite different from night stalkers.

The measurement of time became ensconced with the invention of the timepiece.  When utilization of the watch, clock, digital devices, etc., established the cutting up of the world into unit measurements, it became a commodity of value because of its limited supply, and the increasing demand for greater productivity within each measured unit.  It is this ascription of “value” which one must contend with, in all aspects of modernity, in the daily living of one’s life.

For Federal and Postal employees who are seeking a quick fix — of one’s medical conditions, as well as securing the opportunity to obtain a Federal Disability Retirement benefit from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — complex considerations must always be weighed in an effort to “save time and money”.

If an OPM Disability Retirement application is not properly put together at the outset, it will waste valuable time in the long run, precisely because one will have to contend with a denial and a Request for Reconsideration, as well as a potential appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Filing a Federal Disability Retirement application can never be a “sure thing”, because it depends so much upon the evidence one must gather, in order to prove one’s case by a preponderance of the evidence.  But the saving of time will be achieved by putting the best case possible in every Federal Disability Retirement application.

The commodity of time is a recognition of its value in modern life.  It is a feature of linear human progression which simply cannot be ignored.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Worker Disability Retirement: The Unresponsive Agency

The complaints abound, and continue to exponentially increase; the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is way behind on its evaluation, review and decision-making process for all characters of retirements, disability retirements included.

It is a given that filing for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement, whether under FERS or CSRS, with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, must necessarily have an expectation of a time-consuming administrative process, precisely because of the encounter with a Federal bureaucracy.  But it seems that each year — nay, each month and week — the delays continue to expand.

At each step of the way, OPM has become more and more unresponsive, and with new cases coming in, the length of time at every stage, and “between” stages, has been extended.  The process itself contains inherent milestones of delay: from filing the entire disability retirement application to a facility in Boyers, Pennsylvania, which merely annotates the receipt of the case and inputs the case into the computer system; to thereafter sending the disability retirement application, with all of its evidentiary submissions and attachments down to Washington, D.C., where it must first await assignment to a caseworker; then, upon assignment, for the caseworker to even get to the applicant’s submission for review and evaluation.  Then, of course, there is the possibility that the entire packet will be selected to be sent out for review by a contract doctor.

The delays are beyond the control of the applicant, his or her OPM Disability attorney, or the agency for whom the applicant worked.  It is, ultimately, an administrative process which can be tedious, time-consuming, and fraught with delays and extended periods of silence.

Patience may well be a virtue, but the unresponsive manner in which the U.S. Office of Personnel Management has handled the delays, fails to engender much confidence in a system which should be most responsive to those in greater need.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire