Tag Archives: federal workers with panic attacks

Federal & Postal Service Disability Retirement: Experience & the Medical Condition

Posted on by
Reply

Often, when a client receives the finalized Federal Disability Retirement packet, I receive a response that goes something like:  “I didn’t realize I was so bad off, until I read through the prepared packet.”  While I have not personally experienced the medical conditions of my many clients over the years, I have the experience of having spoken to them, and have learned about the symptoms, the words which best describe the pain, the impact, and the symptoms which are experienced on a daily basis.

That is why it is an absurdity for the Office of Personnel Management, for example, to continually and redundantly refer to Fibromyalgia cases as ones with symptoms which “wax and wane”.  Or, with severe Major Depression, Anxiety and panic attacks, the Office of Personnel Management will systematically deny many such claims by stating that there is no “objective medical evidence” to show that the individual is unable to continue to provide efficient service in a cognitive-intensive job.

It is the job of the attorney, in a Federal Disability Retirement case, to be the one who projects the experience of the disabled Federal or Postal employee.  The FERS attorney does not have to personally experience the medical condition in order to properly and descriptively convey the impact of the symptoms and debilitating conditions; however, it is helpful if the Federal Disability Attorney has had a wide range of experience — by having spoken to multiple individuals over the years who have personally experienced such conditions.  In this way, the FERS Attorney can obtain the experience to express the medical experience of the applicant.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
OPM Disability Retirement Attorney

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Spouse

Posted on by
Reply

I find that when a person is filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, an important component which is often overlooked is the supportive spouse.  I often get calls concerning various aspects of the Disability Retirement process — not from the applicant, but from the spouse.

And, indeed, this is natural, because often the medical condition itself is serious enough that the applicant is unable to “handle” or “deal with” the complexities of the process itself.  It becomes further complicated when the medical condition which is suffered is a psychiatric condition — severe Major Depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicidal ideations, etc.

However, whether it is psychiatric or physical, a supportive spouse — or “significant other” — is often very, very important to the success of the entire process.  Obviously, as an attorney who represents “the Client”, I must be careful that there is never a conflict between the Applicant (my client) and “the spouse”, but that is rare.

In almost all cases, I find that the spouse is looking after the best interest of my client, and I am happy to talk to and update the spouse on any and all issues surrounding disability retirement issues, because I know that he/she is looking after the best interests of my client, just as I want to.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
OPM Medical Disability Retirement Attorney

 

OPM Decisions of Denial in FERS Disability Retirement Cases

Posted on by
1

It is a frightening thought that there may be a percentage of Federal or Postal Federal Disability Retirement applicants who read an initial denial from the Office of Personnel Management, and take their words at face value.

From statements such as, “Your doctor has failed to show that your condition is amenable to further treatments” (by the way, when did the Office of Personnel Management obtain a medical degree or complete a residency requirement?) to “you have not shown that you are totally disabled from performing efficient work” (hint:  this is not Social Security, and the standard is not “total disability”), to a full spectrum of error-filled statements in between, one may suspect that there may be a knowing strategy in rendering a denial, knowing that a small percentage of the corpus of disability retirement applicants will simply walk away and not file a Request for Reconsideration.

Further, I suspect that this occurs more often with certain more “vulnerable” medical conditions — Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Major Depression, PTSD, anxiety, panic attacks; Chemical Sensitivity cases, etc.  Why do I suspect these?  Mostly because such cases are attacked for “lacking objective medical evidence” (see my articles on Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, and similar writings) and failing to provide “diagnostic test results”, etc.

There was a time, long ago, when it used to mean something when someone said, “The Government says…”  In this day and age, I would advise that you take it to an attorney to review whether or not the words of the Office of Personnel Management are true or not.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Law

Posted on by
Reply

I will be writing an article of greater length on this issue, but suffice it for now that when “the law” works, it works well. A major second case has been decided in favor of the Federal employee — first, it was Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, 508 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and now, Sylvia M. Reilly v. OPM, decided July 15, 2009. Vanieken-Ryals toppled the irrational imposition of a baseless standard by OPM — that there is a distinction to be made between “objective” as opposed to “subjective” evidence concerning medical evidence (example of the absurdity: How do you prove the existence of pain? While an MRI may show a physical condition, you cannot prove that such a physical condition equates to debilitating pain, leaving aside any quantification of pain. Similarly, how do you prove the existence of Major Depression? Anxiety? Panic attacks?).

Now, Reilly v. OPM has toppled another idol of a false standard imposed by OPM: that medical documentation which post-dates separation from Federal Service is near-irrelevant. This has never made sense, for at least 2 reasons: first, since a person is allowed to file for Federal Disability Retirement within 1 year of being separated from service, why would medical documentation dated after the separation be considered irrelevant? Second, medical conditions rarely appear suddenly. Most conditions are progressive and degenerative in nature, and indeed, that is what the Court in Reilly argues. Grant another win for the Federal employee, the law, and the process of law. It makes being a lawyer worthwhile when “the law” works.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Do Psychiatric Disabilities Still Carry a Stigma?

Posted on by
Reply

Do Psychiatric Conditions still carry a stigma?  Does the Office of Personnel Management, or the Merit Systems Protection Board, treat Psychiatric medical conditions any differently than, say, bulging discs, degenerative disc disease, or carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.?  Is there a greater need to explain the symptoms of psychiatric conditions, in preparing an Applicant’s Statement of Disability, than conditions which can be “verified” by diagnostic testing?  Obviously, the answer should be: There is no difference of review of the medical condition by OPM or the MSPB.

Certainly, this should be the case in light of Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM.  Neither OPM nor an MSPB Judge should be able to impose a requirement in disability retirement cases involving psychiatric disabilities, that there needs to be “objective medical evidence,” precisely because there is no statute or regulation governing disability retirement which imposes such a requirement that “objective” medical evidence is required to prove disability.  As I stated in previous articles, as long as the treating doctor of the disability retirement applicant utilizes “established diagnostic criteria” and applies modalities of treatment which are “consistent with generally accepted professional standards,” the evidence presented concerning psychiatric disabilities should not be treated any differently than that of physical disabilities.

As the Court in Vanieken-Ryals stated, OPM’s adherence to a rule which systematically demands medical evidence of an “objective” nature and refuses to consider “subjective” medical evidence, is “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.”  Yet, when preparing the Applicant’s Statement of Disability, it is always wise to utilize greater descriptive terms.  For, when dealing with medical conditions such as Bipolar disorder, Major Depression, panic attacks, anxiety, etc., one must use appropriate adjectives and “triggering”, emotional terms — if only to help the OPM representative or the Administrative Judge understand the human side of the story.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Are Psychiatric Disabilities Denied More Readily?

Posted on by
1

I am often asked whether or not it is more difficult to get OPM Disability Retirement benefits based upon a psychiatric medical condition (e.g., PTSD, Major Depression, Anxiety, panic attacks, Bipolar Disorder, etc.).  Does the Office of Personnel Management deny a Federal Disability Retirement application which is based solely upon a psychiatric condition?  Should a FERS Disability Retirement application always include a physical condition?  The short and simple answer is an unequivocal “No”.

Let me provide a slightly more expanded answer:  (1)  In my experience, psychiatric disabilities present no greater obstacles than physical disabilities.  So long as we can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the medical condition — physical or psychiatric — prevents one from performing the essential elements of one’s job, there really is no difference between the two.  (2)  Do not “add” a physical disability because you think that a psychiatric disability is “not enough”.  This would be a foolish approach.  Focus upon the primary medical conditions, whether physical or psychiatric, in proving your case.  (3)  Remember that OPM Disability Retirement often has other complex factors which come into play — accommodation issues; certain jobs are more easily shown to be “incompatible” with a psychiatric disability (for instance, Law Enforcement Personnel who have psychiatric disabilities obviously must have the mental acuity to perform the inherently dangerous aspects of the position); and remember that psychotropic medications, prescribed and necessary for daily functioning, often have side-effects which impact one’s ability to perform one’s job.

The point in all of this is that there really is no substantive difference between psychiatric disabilities and physical ones, anymore; the societal stigma of “psychiatric medical conditions” has largely disappeared, and the Office of Personnel Management — in my experience — treats both psychiatric disabilities and physical disabilities on an equal par.

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: Quality versus Quantity

Posted on by
Reply

While most Federal Disability Retirement applicants whom I represent, and have represented, retain me at the initial stage of the application, a good many of my clients come to me at the Second (Reconsideration) and Third (Merit Systems Protection Board) Stages of the process.  I find that the vast majority of the individuals who attempted to put his or her disability retirement packet together, and got it denied at the first level, attempted to simply overpower the Office of Personnel Management with a voluminous compendium of medical records.

Wrong move.  Always place quality over quantity.

Streamlining a case is often the key to winning a disability retirement case.  This is just as true for cases involving Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, etc.  Because such medical conditions are often thought of as “not quite” legitimate conditions, applicants often make the mistake of thinking that by overloading the Office of Personnel Management with a thick, unwieldy file of medical records, that the sheer weight of the records will convince OPM that it is a “legitimate” case.

Wrong move.  Don’t be defensive.

Such conditions as Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Bi-polar Disorder, panic attacks, Generalized Anxiety Disorder — they are all legitimate basis for disability retirement.  Such medical conditions need not be apologized for.  Such conditions need not be “defensively” or “apologetically” submitted.  They are legitimate conditions to file; they just need to be submitted in the proper manner — by having a strong, streamlined, and cohesive medical narrative, properly prepared by the doctor, under the guidance of a Federal Disability Retirement attorney.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Medical Retirement: Psychiatric Disabilities

Posted on by
1

I am often asked, on an initial interview/consultation of a potential client, whether or not psychiatric medical disabilities (Major Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, panic attacks, Bi-polar disorder, etc.) are “more difficult” to prove than physical disabilities. This question is similar, of course, to the question often asked of certain other kinds of disabilities, like Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and other similar (often designated as “auto-immune” disabilities) medical conditions.

In my experience, there is no single generic answer to the question of whether or not a particular medical disability is “more difficult” to prove than another. In my experience, I have gotten approved an application for Major Depression based upon a single-page note from a Psychiatrist; on the converse/inverse experience, I have had cases rejected at the First Stage of the process (but, fortunately, had the same cases approved at the Second, Reconsideration Stage) showing chronic, failed-back syndrome cases where prior surgical discectomies, multiple diagnostic MRIs showing incontrovertible basis for severe and radiating pain, and multiple specialists verifying the client’s clear and irrefutable inability to perform the essential elements of his/her job.

In preparing a Federal disability retirement retirement application, my many years of experience has taught me a number of elementary & foundational lessons: First, a clear and concise presentation of providing a direct nexus between the particular medical condition and the type of job that the Federal/Postal employeee performs, is very important; Second, it is very rarely the volume of records which is convincing; rather, it is the quality of the medical report which is paramount; and Third, it often depends upon which OPM Disability Specialist it is assigned to, which sometimes “makes the difference” between approval and denial.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Summary legal update for FERS & CSRS disability retirement

Posted on by
Reply

On my website, www.federaldisabilitylawyer.com, I give a more extensive explanation of a recent and important case impacting federal disability retirement applications, but I think that it is important for everyone filing, or contemplating filing, for disability retirement under FERS or CSRS, to be aware of the recent United States Court of Appeals case for the Federal Circuit, Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, #2006-3260, decided on November 26, 2007, in which it was found that OPM’s adherence to the rule that they will refuse to “consider such medical evidence…for being ‘purely subjective’ is a critical legal error…and clearly prejudicial.”

Often, in cases involving cognitive impairment, psychiatric disabilities, disabilities involving diffuse and chronic pain, and those conditions such as Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue, etc. the Federal Circuit Court in Vanieken-Ryals has essentially held that OPM’s adherence to “objective evidence” is “unsupported in the law, was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.”

The Judge therein stated that OPM must consider the medical evidence that is submitted, and cannot attack a medical condition unless there is a doubt as to the “credentials or veracity [of the doctor],” and this is especially true where the doctor has “utilized established diagnostic criteria and [is] consistent with ‘generally accepted professional standards’ ” of medical practice.

This is an important case for Federal disability retirement applicants to use when filing for psychiatric medical disabilities, and for those “hard to define” cases (again, e.g., Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, etc.), because OPM will often declare as a basis for denial that the applicant lacked “objective medical evidence” or that there was no “objective diagnostic tests” showing the medical condition. This is, to use a very well-know legal term, now considered “baloney”. As long as the doctor has applied established diagnostic criteria and generally accepted professional standards, unless OPM can attack the credentials of the doctor, they must consider the medical evidence.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire