Tag Archives: document preparation and opm disability law

FERS Disability Retirement: Viewing the Office of Personnel Management

Posted on by
1

Agencies are “like” people; they are “organic” organizations (a redundancy?), and as a corporate-like entity, they respond and react as people do:  cerebrally, emotionally, reactively, angrily, etc.  If one views an agency in this way — treating the entity as one would a person — then you will often get the same or similar results as when dealing with your brother, a spouse, or a neighbor.  And, indeed, as a logical approach, this only makes sense, because agencies and organizations are made up of people.

Thus, when filing an application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, it is often important to think of “incentives” in approaching the Office of Personnel Management, to make every effort to have a carrot/stick approach in filing a disability retirement application.  The “stick” part of it, of course, is the law — the threat of making sure that OPM knows that you will be willing to go the full course — to the Merit Systems Protection Board, to the Full Board Appeal, to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  If OPM denies your case and they get it reversed at the appellate level, it makes them “look bad”.

That is the stick to hold over them — the force of the law.  The carrot part of it is to streamline it and make it as easy as possible by obtaining a clear and concise medical report.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
OPM Disability Retirement Attorney

 

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The Law II

Posted on by
Reply

A more extensive article on the recent case of Reilly v. OPM has already appeared in FedSmith.com, because it is an important step forward in Federal Disability Retirement Law.  Decided July 15, 2009 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it topples another idol of a false standard imposed by OPM:  that medical documentation which is written by a doctor after a Federal or Postal employee is separated from Federal Service may be dismissed as being near-irrelevant in evaluating and reviewing a Federal disability retirement application. This has never made sense, since many medical conditions are progressive and degenerative in nature, and that is precisely what the Court in Reilly argues.  “The field of forensic medicine abounds with examples of subsequent medical examinations relevant to a prior condition,” the Court in Reilly argued, citing the classic example that “inferencesabout prior intoxication can be drawn from blood alcohol tests conducted at a later time.”  Further, where “proximity in time, lay testimony, or some other evidence provides the requisite link to the relevant period the subsequent evidence can be very probative of a prior disability.” Of course medical evidence gathered within the 1-year period after separation of service should be given probative value.  The Court in Reilly states that principle clearly.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability: The Filing I

Posted on by
Reply

Never be deceptive in your filing. Always be truthful. To be deceptive or untruthful will harm your credibility, your case, and ultimately, may defeat your ability to obtain disability retirement benefits. Now, there is a conceptual distinction between being “truthful” and emphasizing certain issues of your case, while leaving certain other issues as secondary and less prominent in the documents & supportive papers filed.

Thus, to take a rather crude example, while everyone in the world spends a great deal of his or her life in the restroom, we rarely — if ever — talk about such events. Is it because we are not being “truthful”? No — instead, while it is an issue which is not emphasized, it is not something which we are also being deceptive about.

Thus, with respect to disability retirement issues, one should never deliberately attempt to mislead, hide, or otherwise “expunge” certain aspects of the disability retirement application. At the same time, however, those aspects which are not very helpful, or which may harm your case, should not be placed in bold-type or underlined in red. Wherever possible, those aspects which will weaken your case, should simply be de-emphasized — but never deliberately hidden.

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

FERS Disability Retirement: Symptoms versus Diagnosis

Posted on by
Reply

If FERS Disability Retirement were merely a matter of determining the proper diagnosis of a medical condition, and having a doctor ascribe a percentage rating of disability, then the process of a disability retirement application would substantively be altered, and perhaps there would be far fewer cases to adjudicate at the Merit Systems Protection Board level.  For, if the criteria were that ‘cut and dry’, there would be little for OPM and the applicant & the applicant’s lawyer to argue over.

However, it rarely is that ‘cut and dry’ — because the major battle is rarely over the diagnosis; it is rarely over an issue concerning a percentage ascription of disability; rather, it is over the symptoms manifested, the significance of such symptoms upon the type of work one does, and in the impact such symptoms have upon the essential elements of one’s job.

That is why descriptive terms are important in disability retirement law. It is not so important ‘what it is’, as opposed to ‘how it is characterized’.  From this perspective, it is important for a FERS Disability Retirement Attorney to be more of a poet than to be cold and analytical — although, the best approach would be to have a little bit of both.

Remember to always know the context — the applicant will not be standing in front of an OPM representative showing how terrible the applicant’s medical condition is; there will be no visual presentation; everything is based upon a narrative — the applicant’s statement of disability, the medical documentation, the legal memorandum of the attorney, etc.  Thus, it is all-important for the Federal Disability Attorney who represents a disability retirement applicant to have a good command of the English language.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal disability retirement: Getting the Bruner Presumption

Posted on by
Reply

If an individual is successful in persuading the Agency to remove him or her for his/her medical inability to perform the job, then the entitlement to what is coined as the “Bruner Presumption” is obtained. This is a great advantage, but one which is often misunderstood.

Remember that, under Bruner v. Office of Personnel Management, 996 F.2d 290 (Fed. Cir. 1993), when an individual is accorded the Bruner Presumption because of being removed for one’s medical inability to perform one’s job, this merely means that the “burden of production” shifts to the Office of Personnel Management, who must disprove your entitlement to disability retirement. However, the initial burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence must still be met: i.e., one must still submit sufficient medical evidence to show that one was or is unable to perform the essential elements of one’s job.

This point should be obvious: for the Agency itself would never have separated an individual unless there was medical evidence to show that the individual could no longer perform the job. Thus, the very medical evidence which supported and justified the Agency’s action, is the same medical evidence which can be used to meet the initial burden of proof with OPM. The key is that, after this burden is met, then OPM has the harder burden of disproving that which the applicant has met. This is the great advantage of the Bruner Presumption.

Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Common Mistakes in Filing for CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement (Part I)

Posted on by
Reply

There are multiple mistakes often made when an unrepresented individual files for disability retirement under FERS & CSRS. One such common mistake is the very presentation of an application packet that is presented to the Office of Personnel Management.

Often, when an individual has a disability retirement application denied at the First Stage, and has asked me to represent him/her at the second, Reconsideration Stage, I find that what the individual did at the first stage was to put together the packet of medical records — often, a voluminous set breathtaking in its sheer quantity of pages — thinking that because he/she has serious medical issues, that the great quantity of medical records in itself will justify qualification of a disability retirement packet.

Volume of medical records rarely qualifies an individual for disability retirement. Instead, it must be remembered that eligibility and qualification for disability retirement benefits is determined by a set of legal criteria that must be met by a preponderance of the evidence, and it is up to the applicant and his/her legal representative to meet that burden of proof.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire