Tag Archives: OPM disability application tips and strategies

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: SF 3112C

Posted on by
1

Standard Form 3112C, the Physician’s Statement, is often an ineffective way of getting one’s treating doctor to prepare and write an effective medical report for a disability retirement application, to be submitted and reviewed by the Office of Personnel Management.  Because it is a standard form — with standard language and guidelines provided in generic form –doctor’s generally dislike taking such “instructional forms” and trying to decipher what is needed, how to properly and effectively interpret the generic instructions, and be the most effective medical advocate on behalf of a patient. 

This is where an attorney’s guidance can be most effective and invaluable; for, ultimately, OPM’s review of eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS is not merely medical, but legal.  Because there are legal standards to be met, eligibility is ultimately determined not solely upon a medical basis, but upon a mixture of medical documentation which must satisfy a legal standard.  That is why the guidance of an attorney is crucial in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS & CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: OPM and a Delicate Balance

Posted on by
Reply

The Office of Personnel Management, as a Federal Agency, always maintains a “public face” of stating that they welcome inquiries and telephone calls to check on the status of a pending Disability Retirement application.  Yet, we all know that Agencies, Departments and the personnel and offices which comprise all Federal entities, are made up of “people”, and people are complex bundles made up of different and differing personalities.

There is a fine and delicate balance to be maintained between an “inquiry” and a “bugging”, and further, between an acceptable level of “bugging” and one which crosses the line into annoyance.  It is good to recognize and know when and if the lines are crossed.  A power struggle is a fine thing to get into, where there are two camps of equal power.  Where there is an imbalance of power, however, it is often unwise to insist upon the tug-and-pull of such a struggle.

A word to the wise:  in dealing with any Federal Agency, be it the Office of Personnel Management or a Supervisor at a given Agency X, maintain a voice and tone of professionalism; the person on the other end of the telephone, no matter how friendly, is not your next-of-kin; be courteous, always, even if you want to insist upon something.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Discretion in a Response (Part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

In responding to an initial denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application before the Office of Personnel Management, it is important to remain professional, and not to “overload” the response with unnecessary or otherwise irrelevant responses.

Initial anger and disbelief over the selective criticisms contained in an OPM denial letter should not be reflected in a response to the denial.  Why not?  Because there is a good possibility that the case may be denied a second time, and it may appear before the Administrative Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Don’t write things to OPM that you will regret having an Administrative Judge — one who may be deciding your case — look at and read.  Thus, the “first rule”:  never write an immediate response back, because your anger and emotional disbelief will show itself.

If you need to “get rid” of your anger and expiate the emotionalism, then write your emotional response on a separate piece of paper, then set it aside.  Your “real” response will come later — when you can with a rational perspective, review the unfair and selectively biased denial letter, and begin to compose the serious response that your case deserves.  Or, better yet, get your attorney to do it.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Always Verify Submissions

Posted on by
Reply

The old saying:  Measure twice, cut once, can be adapted here:  Verify twice, submit once.  I am always surprised by Federal and Postal employees who have filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS to hear that a document, a submission, a Request for Reconsideration, an appeal, etc., was sent to the Office of Personnel Management by regular mail, with no manner of verification.

While I have great respect for the personnel who work at the U.S. Postal Service as well as the Office of Personnel Management, such issues have nothing to do with individual competence; instead, it has to do with the recognition that all oversized agencies (do we even have to argue as to what is defined as an “oversized agency”?) have their internal mail problems — not only of sending or receiving mail, but getting it to the right person, etc.

Not everyone needs to be overly “verification-sensitive” like I am, but my methodology for every document forwarded to OPM is as follows:  faxed (with a print-out of a receipt showing that the fax went through), as well as an express mail or FedEx tracking number.  Verify twice, submit once.  The Office of Personnel Management has never won an argument with me that they “never received it.”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: As Strong As the Weakest Link

Posted on by
Reply

Have you ever heard the phrase, that “X is only as strong as the weakest link”?  What does that mean?  When applied to Federal Disability Retirement applications, it has significance and application on multiple levels.  Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS and CSRS has multiple, and almost an infinite amount of, potholes, dangers, traps and landmines, both hidden and apparent — and that is from the viewpoint of the attorney.

I can only imagine what it is like for the Federal or Postal employee who thinks as follows:  I have a serious medical condition; there is a benefit called “disability retirement”; let me make copies of my medical records, fill out the forms, and submit it.  I should get it with no problems.  I get telephone calls almost on a daily basis from people who say, “I can’t believe that the Office of Personnel Management disapproved my claim.  What did I do wrong?”  Often, it is the Office of Personnel Management that “did something wrong”, and it is up to the Attorney to point that fact out.

Now, back to the original thought of this blog:  A case is only as strong as the weakest link.  As Federal Disability Retirement applications have many complex issues surrounding and central to the application and the application process, it is important to make sure that even the weakest link of the packet — whether it is the doctor’s report, the Applicant’s Statement of Disability, the legal arguments to be made, etc. — make sure that the weakest of the links is strong enough to withstand the selective (and often unfair) reasoning and attacks of the Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: The Layman

Posted on by
Reply

Attorneys create and manufacture a parallel universe of statutory interpretation, legal argumentation, case-law citations, and extrapolations from esoteric provisions in arguing the “finer points” of law.  Thus, it is a temptation for the lay person — the “non-lawyer” — to attempt to borrow from cases and take a stab at citing case-law and statutory authority in trying to garner support for his or her Federal Disability Retirement application.

In taking on a case at the Reconsideration Stage or the Merit Systems Protection Board, I have the opportunity to read some of the “legal arguments” which non-lawyers have attempted to make.  While many such arguments are valid, some (i.e., too many) mis-cite the law, and often fail to understand and proffer the substantive import of what the cases are saying.  On top of it all, I suspect that the Office of Personnel Management gets a bit annoyed when a non-lawyer applicant attempts to preach the law to another non-lawyer OPM Representative.

A word to the wise:  let lawyers entertain themselves in the parallel universe of the law; let the doctors render their medical opinions; let the non-lawyers make the best arguments possible, in simple language.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: An Art Form (Part I of II)

Posted on by
1

As with all effective submissions — pleadings, motions, legal memorandums and, alas, Federal Disability Retirement applications — it should never be approached in a mechanical, one-to-one ratio-like, mathematical manner.  Of course it should contain the technical terms, the medical terms, and the legal arguments.

However, disability retirement under FERS & CSRS — especially the Applicant’s Statement of disability and any legal arguments — should not be matter of matching up a one-to-one correspondence between the medical condition and the particular essential elements which it prevents or impacts.

Certainly, the effect and the conclusion should contain that conceptual correspondence; however, as all good writing contains a technical side, it is also important to weave the story of the human condition and see the writing as an “art” form.

The impact of the human story is important in convincing and persuading the OPM representative to not only understand the medical condition, but to get a sense of empathy for what the applicant is going through.  It is a delicate balance to achieve; yes, the hard legal arguments should be made in order to “force” OPM to see that, legally, they are obligated to approve a disability retirement application; at the same time, if you can touch the empathetic nature of the OPM representative, so much the better.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

See also: ”An Art Form (Part II)”

OPM Disability Retirement: OPM’s Specific Denial I

Posted on by
Reply

On those occasions when an OPM denial specifically (and correctly) identifies and asserts deficiencies in a disability retirement application, it is important to have a targeted response in addressing the denial.  The reason for such a targeted approach is for two primary reasons:  (1)  One should always address the alleged specific basis of OPM’s denial of a Federal disability retirement application, and (2) By specifically addressing and answering OPM’s specific basis for the denial, if the Office of Personnel Management denies the application a second time, and it is therefore appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, it is important to view the entire case of OPM as “unreasonable”.

In other words, it is important at the outset to “prejudice” the Administrative Judge as to the unreasonableness of the Office of Personnel Management. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this — because the “prejudice” which the Judge may perceive is in fact based upon the truth of the matter:  OPM is indeed being unreasonable, and it is important for the Administrative Judge to see such unreasonableness.  It is important to be able to say to the Judge, Your Honor, do you see how we answered the basis of the denial — and yet, even after specifically addressing the basis of the denial, OPM still denied it?  What else can we do?  It is always important to prepare each step of the case not only for the “present” case, but also for the potential “next” case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS Disability Retirement: Be Careful

Posted on by
2

As part of a Federal or Postal employee’s process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, one may have to negotiate, respond to, or fight against an unfair Agency’s attempt to remove the Federal or Postal employee — based upon factors other than what is truly the underlying basis — of his or her medical inability to perform the essential elements of the Federal job.

For whatever reason — of incompetence, of pure unkindness, of personal vendettas, etc. —  Agencies will often refuse to remove an individual for the administratively neutral reason (by “neutral”, to mean that it is not an “adverse” action) of “medical inability to perform the essential elements of the job”.  Instead, they will often revert to other reasons:  “excessive absences”, “AWOL”, “excessive LWOP“; “violation of a PIP”, and other such overtly misleading reasons.

When, the truth of the matter is/was, the Federal or Postal employee was sick, has a medical condition, and could not come to work because of medical reasons.  Be careful.  Fight the removal action.  Don’t accept the unfair basis.  File an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board.  Remember, a removal for medical inability to perform the essential elements of the job can help you get an approval in a disability retirement application.  Better yet, hire an attorney who will fight for you.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

 

OPM Disability Retirement and OWCP Second Opinion Doctor: Be Smart

Posted on by
1

Disability retirement under the Office of Personnel Management, and Worker’s Comp benefits from the Department of Labor, OWCP — normally, I explain that the two have nothing to do with each other, and “never the twain shall meet” (except, of course, insofar as one must choose one or the other; that causality or “on the job” issues are not relevant for OPM disability retirement; or that OWCP pays more but is not a retirement system, etc. — thus, all of those distinctions and differences which only serve to emphasize the separation between the two benefits).

However, there are instances when the applicant filing for OPM disability retirement benefits, and who (at the same time, coincidentally) has been under the thumb of OWCP, should “cross over” between the two — especially when he or she has received a favorable Second Opinion stating that the (so-called) Independent Medical Examination shows that the OWCP beneficiary is unable to return to the job.  In that instance, such a medical opinion can and should be used for OPM disability retirement purposes.  In fact, such a medical opinion is often viewed by OPM as “independent” and “unbiased”.

To a great extent, this is somewhat of an irony, because from the employee’s viewpoint, the Second Opinion Doctor is anything but an “unbiased” doctor (in most instances), inasmuch as OWCP/DOL is paying for his or her services.  But when that “unbiased” doctor gives a favorable opinion, then it can work to your advantage when filing for disability retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esqire