Context is important. Identifying the relevance of importance, however, is discretionary, and requires some insight into the impact which a differentiated distinction might require.
Allow for some expansive explanation: In attempting to obtain OWCP/DOL benefits, one may want to argue against the validity of a medical evaluation — i.e., by attacking the claimed “independence” of the medical evaluation (argument: the doctor is being compensated by the Department of Labor; 25% of his practice is devoted to such evaluations, and out of that, 95% of his evaluations are found to be in favor of the Department of Labor, etc.). But the fact that one may want to attack the relevance and validity of an independent medical examination within the context of the Office of Worker’s Compensation, does not mean that when one files for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, that one should necessarily and unequivocally discard the received report from OWCP.
There may well be statements contained in such a report which may be useful in arguing to OPM that one’s Federal Disability Retirement application should be approved. Can one argue positively that it is an “independent” medical examination? Absolutely. In fact, the contrary argument should be made: that because the doctor was selected by another government agency (Department of Labor), it is all the more so that the medical opinions of the particular doctor are relevant and of significant impact. One must be careful, of course, in using such collateral sources for support of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application, but so long as the proper context is identified and understood, one should always consider the use of such “other” sources of support — but never to replace the primary importance of one’s treating doctor. Context, properly understood, can result in substantive argumentation of relevant and significant import.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Theory and Practice: Tips and Strategies for a Successful Application | Tagged: causality issues in federal workers comp and disability retirement, civil service disability, disability retirement at the USPS, disabled federal employees and collateral legal determinations, evaluating disability federal workers compensation, evaluation of doctor's notes before submitting them to the agency, federal owcp, Federal Disability, federal disability retirement, FERS disability lawyer, FERS disability retirement, how can I win a federal disability claim for federal employees, how to use collateral medical determinations from the owcp, independent medical evaluation postal workers, large amount of medical documentation for opm disability retirement, law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america, nationwide representation of federal employees, negative performance evaluations for injured federal employees, OPM disability retirement, opm owcp, opm supportive medical documentation, owcp disability retirement, Postal disability, postal service workers compensation claims, resources for injured federal workers, sometimes you may use collateral issues for your fers disability claim, us postal service workers comp, using independent medical examinations in the fers disability retirement application, using medical evaluations from the federal owcp, what medical documents to use in an opm disability application, when an independent physician sides with the federal worker, when doctors are chosen and paid by workers comp, when to mention a collateral issue during the sf 3112 preparation, Workers Comp disability | 1 Comment »
OPM Disability Retirement: Service Deficiency & Medical Condition
The Office of Personnel Management will often use as a criteria of denial the argument/basis that despite the fact that an individual may have a medical condition such that the medical documentation states that the Federal or Postal worker can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, nevertheless, there has not been a showing that a “service deficiency” has occurred. Often, agencies systematically write up performance appraisals without much thought or consideration; more often, Federal and Postal workers quietly suffer through his or her medical condition, and strive each day to meet the requirements of their duties.
Whatever the reason for the lack of attention or perception on the part of the supervisor or the agency to recognize that the Federal or Postal worker has not been able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, such basis for a denial of a disability retirement application by the Office of Personnel Management is not a legitimate one, because existence of a “service deficiency” is not the whole story: if it is found that retention in the job is “inconsistent” with the type of medical condition the Federal or Postal Worker has, then such a finding would “trump” the lack of any service deficiency. That is not something, however, that the Office of Personnel Management is likely to tell you as they deny your disability retirement application.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: OPM Disability Actors - The Agency, OPM Disability Actors - The Supervisor, U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) | Tagged: adverse agency reaction, agency's extraordinary top assessment in fers disability applications, agency's influence in disability retirement, assessment for postal disability retirement from supervisor, criteria of denial instead of criteria of disability in opm disability, disability retirement csrs, disability retirement usps non job related, disability retirement workers compensation, essential elements of jobs not so essential according to evaluation, federal disability facts, federal disability law firm, federal medical retirement, fers disability application supervisor comments, FERS disability attorney, fers disability attorney in mississippi, fers disability benefits, government postal disability, injured postal workers and their miraculous job evaluations, law firm for federal disability retirement, medical disability lawyers opm, opm disability and the supervisor who says everything's fine, opm disability for federal employees in louisiana, opm disability for federal workers in alabama, opm disability retirement representation in utah, opm supervisor statement disability retirement, opm's excuses to deny your federal disability retirement, owcp disability retirement really is usually meant "opm disability retirement", owcp medical retirement, postal service disability retirement, postal service medical retirement, representing federal employees from any us government agency, representing federal employees in and outside the country, representing us government disability employees anywhere, the incapacitated federal employee without service deficiency, USPS disability retirement benefits, washington state federal opm disability retirement, when supervisors don't notice any medical condition in federal worker, when the agency claims no service deficiency in opm application, when there is no accommodation because there is no job deficiency, when top performance hurts the chances of getting fers disability, when work performance evaluations are near too perfect, Workers Comp disability, workers comp fers retirement, your supervisor and federal disability retirement | Leave a comment »