Federal Disability Retirement: SSA Approval, Part III

What if an SSA decision letter is not immediately forthcoming, or does not address the same medical conditions as that applied for in one’s disability retirement application? In such a circumstance, the best argument that can be put forth is to show the Office of Personnel Management that the application submitted to the Social Security Administration is essentially identical with the application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits submitted with OPM; then, to make the argument by analogy that where two applications are essentially identical, and where the higher standard of eligibility required (“total disability” — per SSA) has resulted in an approval, then the law must mandate that a lower standard of eligibility required (disability from being able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s particular job — FERS & CSRS) be by analogy and by logical consistency, result in an approval.

In submitting this argument, it is often helpful to submit a copy of the application/questionnaire filled out for SSA, and point out the identical nature of the medical conditions claimed, along with proof of approval by SSA.  Finally, it is important to refer to particular case-law citations to reinforce such arguments — but, alas, as to this latter point, it is best to obtain the services of an attorney who is experienced in Federal Disability Retirement law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: SSA Approval, Part II

In order for an SSA approval to have an impact upon a Federal disability retirement application, the Social Security Administration’s decision letter granting benefits must provide a detailed explanation as to the basis for the approval, delineating the medical basis, the medical conditions upon which the decision was made, etc.  Thereafter, the applicant can submit the decision letter, but this is where it is important to have an attorney provide the proper legal & foundational argument — to provide the contextual applicability.

The legal basis, to start with, is found in Trevan v. Office of Personnel Management, 69 F.3d 520, 526-27 (Fed. Cir. 1995), in which the Federal Circuit Court found that in making a determination of eligibility for disability retirement, the Board (and thus, by analogy, OPM) must consider an award of SSA disability benefits together with medical evidence provided by the appellant to OPM, and other evidence of disability.  This is when an attorney’s tools of “argument by analogy” and pointing out the significant contextual language in an SSA decision letter comes in handy.  Next:  What if an SSA decision letter is not immediately forthcoming, or does not address the same medical conditions as that applied for in one’s disability retirement application?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: SSA Approval, Part I

Of interest is what to do when a Social Security filing for disability benefits has been approved prior to the FERS/CSRS disability retirement application being approved.  This is a rarity, and indeed, it should logically be that way:  for Social Security disability requires a higher standard of (essentially) “total disability”; while the criteria for approval under FERS/CSRS is that of an “inability to perform the essential elements” of a particular job — meaning, in essence, that an individual is no longer a good fit for a particular type of job, but could certainly be productive in some other capacity of employment.

The cases at the Merit System Protection Board which have addressed this issue have been fairly consistent.  An approval in and of itself will not necessarily help a FERS/CSRS application; as with the application process itself, the applicant has the preponderance of the evidence of proving the relevance of the approved Social Security filing.  I am often asked whether, in a denial of an SSA disability application, where the decision by the Social Security Administration states that, while SSA acknowledges that the applicant is unable to perform his or her current employment because of the medical condition, yet the applicant for SSA disability benefits is denied because he or she may engage in other productive employment — whether such a statement in the denial (that SSA acknowledges the applicant’s inability to perform his or her current job) should be forwarded to OPM.  My answer is that it should not be, because it is not relevant to OPM’s criteria for making a determination.

As to the two most important questions:  1.  If a Social Security Disability application is approved, what needs to be sent to OPM, and 2. If Social Security’s determination doesn’t provide the necessary language to be relevant for forwarding to OPM, what can take its place?  As to these two questions, I will be addressing each in a blog to be written in the very near future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS Disability Retirement & SSA Awards

When filing for FERS Disability Retirement, one is required to file for SSA disability at some point in the process. Some Human Resources offices have declared that it must be filed prior to OPM’s acceptance of a disability retirement application; this is not true. A receipt showing that SSA has been filed can be forwarded to OPM at any time — even after approval. In the unlikely event that the SSA filing is approved prior to the FERS disability retirement being approved, it is important for the applicant to send to OPM a copy of the award notice, because under Trevan v. OPM, the Office of Personnel Management is required to consider the award of SSA disability, together with other medical documentation, in reviewing a disability retirement application.

There are other steps that need to be taken, of course, to ensure that OPM considers such an SSA award properly and in accordance with the holding in Trevan; and, in most cases, of course, it will not be an issue, because the majority of disability retirement applicants will not qualify for SSA disability; rather, it is a formality that must be satsified, simply because the law requires it.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire