Tag Archives: Application

OPM Disability Retirement: The Proper Approach

Posted on by
Reply

Some believe that, when formulating and compiling a disability retirement application, that quantity of supporting documentation will win the day — all medical reports, records, statements from friends, family, co-workers, etc.

Sometimes, however, it is better to refrain from providing everything all at once; for, if a determination is made that there is sufficient documentation to prevail in a disability retirement application, it is sometimes the wiser course to restrain the natural inclination to bombard the Office of Personnel Management with all of the available documentation.

This is merely a strategic bit of advice; yet, in practical terms, inasmuch as every disability retirement case has the potential to be denied at the First Stage, and OPM would in that event be requesting additional supporting documentation, it is often a good idea to “withhold” and “keep back” a secondary source of supporting documentation — but only if the primary source of supporting documentation is confidently adequate to win at the first stage.

It is a discretionary method of approaching the compiling of data and documentation at the first stage — a decision which should be made with wise counsel.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS Disability Retirement: The First Denial

Posted on by
Reply

Your Federal disability retirement application was well-prepared:  perhaps it was prepared with the help of an attorney; the medical documentation seemed solidly unequivocal; the doctor made the necessary connections between one’s medical conditions and the type of essential elements of one’s job; the packet, by all accounts, should have been approved, and by all expectations, the approval should have been reasonably expected.

Instead, you receive a letter stating that your disability retirement application was disapproved, and a “Discussion” section follows, explaining why the Office of Personnel Management denied your application.  Why did this happen?  There are multiple reasons why such a denial can occur:  the OPM specialist could be a person who lacks a clear understanding of the applicable laws governing disability retirement applications (more often than not, this is the case, and what you actually get in the so-called “Discussion” Section of the denial letter is merely a regurgitation of the statutory criteria for eligibility for disability retirement, without a recognition of the interpretation of such criteria by Federal Judges for the Federal Court of Appeals or by Administrative Judges from the Merit Systems Protection Board); it could be as simple as the OPM representative selectively choosing to read the medical reports and records, and disregarding or ignoring supportive portions of the medical records and reports; or it could be that additional medical reports and records need to be obtained in order to “shore up” the application.

In any event, whatever the reason for the denial, one should not panic.  It is merely one step in a long, administrative process.  The mere fact that OPM denies your disability retirement application does not mean that they are “right” in doing so; indeed, in my opinion, they are rarely right.  That is why one has the right to have it “reconsidered”, and the opportunity to make further legal arguments, and obtain further medical documentation in support of your claim.  And, beyond that, you have the right to file an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board — and beyond.  Never give up; always take it to the next step.  In most cases, it will prove that OPM was in error, and in fighting the denial, you will have secured some semblence of financial security for your future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

The Affirmative Approach to OPM Disability Retirement Filing

Posted on by
Reply

The road which leads to one’s future financial security is irreversibly tied to the extent of how affirmatively one takes one’s future into one’s own hand (now, that was indeed a mouthful).  By this, I mean merely that, in preparing an application for Federal Disability Retirement, there are going to be all sorts of “outside forces” which pull you towards every different direction.  Friends will tell you one thing; your Agency will tell you something else; your coworkers will give you stories (both good and bad); your Human Resources Department may give you advice; ultimately, you must take an affirmative approach and make sure that your application is coherent, logically structured, and medically supported.

By way of example, an Agency’s Human Resources Department will often insist that the Physician’s Statement, SF 3112C, is a “required” form.  It is not.  They will often give you the form with the return address of the Agency stamped in the upper blank box, for the medical report and records to be returned to the H.R. Department.  Upon receipt, the H.R. Department simply includes the medical documentation (without review or determination that it is helpful to your case), and forwards the packet to the Office of Personnel Management.  This would be the “non-affirmative” approach of doing things.  To take the affirmative approach would be:  Make sure that the medical documentation you submit to OPM is the extent, type, and quality that you want to submit.

Remember:  the applicant has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that you are entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  Don’t let third parties (i.e., friends, coworkers, Agency, H.R. Department personnel, etc.) make the decisions for you.  Take the affirmative approach — either by yourself, or through your attorney.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The Process

Posted on by
Reply

The importance of the “process” cannot be overstated in the filing of Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

It is the “coordination” of all of the various elements involved:  the Medical Narrative Report; the proper legal citations to refer to; the relevance of which medical documents to use; streamlining the documentation; the orderly listing of the medical conditions; how the medical conditions should be described; the narrative description of the impact and nexus between the medical condition and the job description; how to deal with accommodation issues; how to preemptively minimize any adverse impact from an “unfriendly” Supervisor’s Statement.

Also, the elements of preparing for the “long haul” — the potential denial, the denial at the Reconsideration Stage, and onward to the Merit Systems Protection Board — thus, preparing the case not only for the First Stage, but for any future stages of the process; how to deal properly and intelligently with specific medical conditions which may require a different “tweaking” of the application (i.e., medical conditions such as Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Bipolar Disorder, panic attacks, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity cases, etc.); the “do’s and don’t’s” of describing certain medical conditions.

These are only some of the issues which must be dealt with, coordinated, and thoughtfully constructed in preparing for a Federal Disability Retirement case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Additional Comment on Medical Documentation

Posted on by
1

There are two (2) fundamental reasons why SF 3112C (Physician’s Statement) “doesn’t work” for physicians:  First, it is a government “form”.  It requests of a doctor to mechanically engage in the very performance of a duty which all doctors (generally speaking) hate:  writing up a report.  It does not provide for a context; it does not attempt to simplify the process for the doctor.  Second, for any doctor, it is an unappealing request.  To shove a government form which is written in fine print, and ask him to “follow the directions” is something all doctors (again, generally speaking) hate to do.

What I have found to be much more effective, is to provide a context and background — an “explanation” — to the doctor, concerning the medical disability retirement process.

That is one of the primary reasons why I never have my clients sign or submit an SF 3112C.  Aside from the danger of allowing for the blind release of any and all medical information to the Agency, and ultimately to the Office of Personnel Management when one signs the 3112C, it is simply not an effective means by which to obtain the necessary medical narrative report from the treating doctor.  To obtain an effective narrative report, it is important to have an attorney make a proper and thorough request.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: Reasonable Accommodation by the Agency

Posted on by
2

Often, aside from having submitted insufficient medical documentation to support a Federal Disability retirement application, the Office of Personnel Management will deny a case based upon a statement submitted by the Supervisor, normally on SF 3112B (aptly entitled, “Supervisor’s Statement”).

Now, in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, I rarely worry about what will be on a Supervisor’s Statement, primarily because the applicant rarely has any control over the contents of the statement, anyway, and therefore to focus upon that which one has little or no control over, is simply a waste of time.  Instead, I focus upon obtaining an overwhelmingly convincing medical narrative report from the doctor, which then essentially makes the Supervisor’s Statement — if it is viewed somewhat as “negative evidence” by the Office of Personnel Management — a moot and irrelevant point of contention.

More often than not, when the Office of Personnel Management refers to the Supervisor’s Statement as revealing some basis for denying a disability retirement application, I find that OPM has either mis-read the import of the statement, or has selectively misquoted from the Supervisor’s Statement.

Remember that the law requires that the Agency provide a “reasonable accommodation”; more often than not, what the Supervisor or the Agency has provided, is neither “reasonable”, nor an “accommodation” under the law.

In any event, whether by misquote, unfair and selective reasoning, misreading, “unreasonable”, or not an “accommodation” at all, I rarely find that the Supervisor’s Statement is helpful or unhelpful; and, certainly, I have never found that a Supervisor’s Statement contains any substance which would or should be the basis of a denial from the Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Administrative “Process”

Posted on by
Reply

I have previously written about how a Federal Disability Retirement application should be prepared:  that it should be looked upon as an administrative “process”, and as such, it is not like taking a test for a driver’s license, or filing an application to obtain a permit — both of which are similarly “administrative” issues.  The reason why filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS is different, and is a “process” as opposed to merely filing an “application” for something which will be essentially rubberstamped, is that it requires proof which must meet a certain statutory legal standard — it requires that one prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one is entitled to receive disability retirement benefits.

Now, wherever “proof” of eligibility is required, there can be a disagreement as to whether or not such proof met the statutory eligibility requirements.  Other applications, such as filing for a Social Security Card, may also have certain statutory requirements, but normally such administrative applications are fairly “cut and dry” — such as, certain documents will be accepted to prove X, or certain forms may need to be filled out to obtain Y.  But where a legal standard of proof must be met, differences between the Applicant and the Agency may erupt.

OPM may state, and argue, that the medical documentation, the Supervisor’s Statement, the Agency Certification of Accommodation efforts, the comparison between the applicant’s Statement of Disability and the doctor’s statements and notes — did not rise to the level of meeting the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence”.  This is where many people get themselves into trouble — by thinking that it is merely an “application” to file in order to obtain an administrative benefit.  Then, when it gets denied at the first level, applicants become devastated, thinking that it is the end of the world.  From the outset, it should be looked at as a “process” — one which may take going to the Merit Systems Protection Board, or even further, to the Full Board Review, and then, if necessary, to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire