Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: The Independence of Each Program

The disparate nature of each Federal program, with little to no intersecting coordination amongst them (with the exception of SSDI and FERS Disability Retirement benefits in the coordination of payments upon approval of each) betrays the unplanned, thoughtless creation of each program, as well as a sense that each agency wants to maintain its feudal control and assertion of independent power.

That perhaps explains, in part, why each program ignores the extent of persuasive authority the approval of another program should logically have, upon an approval and acceptance by the “other” program.  Does it make sense that being granted “unemployability” status under the Department of Veterans Affairs ascription of percentage disability ratings would only have a nominal impact upon a FERS Disability Retirement application?  Or that an SSDI approval would have, at best, a persuasive effect upon a FERS Disability Retirement?

It is somewhat more understandable that a case accepted by OWCP/Department of Labor would have minimal impact upon a FERS or CSRS Disability Retirement application, precisely because the former is set up as a program of rehabilitation in an effort to return the Federal or Postal employee back to his or her job.

The only true “coordination” of benefits occurs between SSDI and FERS — and that, only if both are approved, and payments are received concurrently; but even then, there are often overpayment problems, lack of the left hand knowing what the right hand is doing, etc.

Thus Coordination and intersection between departments, agencies and various programs rarely occurs.  Agencies tend to want to remain independent.

Such lack of coordination, however, does not mean that the FERS or CSRS Federal or Postal employee should not force a legal argument upon OPM when a significant finding is made by another agency or program.  For, in the end, it may not be the U.S. Office of Personnel Management which listens, but an administrative judge at the MSPB, or a 3-judge panel on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals; in which case, a precedent will have been set, for all to (hopefully) follow.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: SSDI Approval as a Special Case

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, there are multiple discretionary decisions which must be made in preparing a paper presentation to the Office of Personnel Management.  For instance, should determinations made by Second-Opinion or Referee doctors in a case which concurrently involves OWCP issues be included in the submission?  Should VA ratings be part of the packet?  Should determinations by a private disability insurance company be included? Should a determination by the Social Security Administration — which often will come about when the packet has already been submitted to the Office of Personnel Management while awaiting a decision — be forwarded to OPM?  

In proving one’s eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, one must affirmatively prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one is eligible for the benefit.  That leaves much of the decision-making process regarding what information is relevant, helpful, pertinent and substantive, up to the Federal or Postal employee and/or his attorney to decide.  There are multiple details, and it is often in the minutiae and details which will win or lose a case.  Should all medical conditions be made a part of the packet?  

These are all discretionary issues to be decided, with the possible exception of Social Security.  Inasmuch as SSDI must be filed, and inasmuch as the statutory mandate is that SSDI and a FERS Disability Retirement annuity must be offset if both are approved, an approval by SSDI is a special case which is non-discretionary.  Not only must OPM be informed of its approval; under the case-law, it must be considered in the process of deciding upon a Federal Disability Retirement case.  Nevertheless, it still remains merely persuasive authority, and not determinative.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire