Tag Archives: OPM disability application tips

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

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: Argument by Analogy

Posted on by
Reply

Attorneys argue “by analogy” all of the time; cases and decisions from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and language from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, provide the fertile fodder for such argumentation.  Thus, such issues as to whether the Bruner Presumption should apply in the case; whether a case is similar to previously-decided Federal Disability Retirement cases; the similarity of fact-scenarios and legal applications — they are all open to argument by analogy.

That is why case-citations are important — even in arguing a Federal Disability Retirement case to the Office of Personnel Management.  Whether and how much influence such legal argumentation can have at the first two stages of the disability retirement application process, may be open to dispute; but cases should never be compiled and prepared for the first or second stage alone; all disability retirement applications should be prepared “as if” it will be denied and will be presented on appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Such careful preparation serves two (2) purposes:  First, for the Office of Personnel Management, to let them know that if they deny it and it goes on appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, they will have to answer to the scrutiny of the Administrative Law Judge; and Second, for the Administrative Law Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board, to let him or her know that you did indeed prepare the case well, and that your particular Federal Disability Retirement application conforms to the law, and should therefore be approved.

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

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Filing II

Posted on by
Reply

People often come to me at the 2nd (Reconsideration) Stage, or the 3rd (Merit Systems Protection Board) Stage, and ask that I correct the mistakes made in the initial filing. Most mistakes can be corrected. Of course, it would have been better if the Applicant had done it properly the first time, for once the Office of Personnel Management views something which should not have been submitted, it cannot be easily retracted — only further explained.

There are, moreover, certain mistakes which cannot be “explained away” — such as deliberate omissions or deceptions. Thus, if the Office of Personnel Management gets the idea that there is an element of deceptiveness in a disability retirement application — either through omission or deliberate avoidance of an issue — then it becomes a difficult case to win. Honesty is always the best policy, and no Disability Retirement applicant should ever engage in any act of covering up any information. This is conceptually different from emphasizing the elements in a disability retirement application which favor an approval, as opposed to de-emphasizing those elements which tend to obscure the primary elements of an application. Such artful emphasis/de-emphasis should always be a part of every disability retirement application, coordinating the Applicant’s Statement of Disability with supporting medical documentation, to convey a consistent “whole” to the Office of Personnel Management.

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: An Art Form (Part II of II)

Posted on by
Reply

In constructing the narrative of one’s story of the human condition and how it impacts the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it is important to weave the story such that it relates as a story.  Every story has a beginning and an end; every story must contain the elements of an effective narrative:  What has occurred; the symptoms; the diagnosis; how the symptoms impact upon one’s ability to perform one’s job; what are some of the essential elements of one’s job; as well as some impact upon one’s personal life.

Now, the Applicant’s Statement of Disability has appropriate sections to “fill in the blank”; but one’s story should not be merely a matter of filling in the blank; instead, it should be a narrative — a coordination of the story, consistent with the medical narrative report obtained from the doctor; and finally, a legal memorandum arguing the law.  The weaving of these elements, in my experience, constitutes what I consider to be a successful disability retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: OPM’s Specific Denial II

Posted on by
Reply

It is important to always “define”, “corner”, and “circumscribe” any denial from the Office of Personnel Management.  If you do not, then what happens at the next level is that it becomes a “de novo” process.  Now, one might argue that all disability retirement appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board are de novo, anyway.  That is true enough — meaning, that all of the evidence is looked at “anew” and without prejudice from any previous finding by the Office of Personnel Management. 

Yet, there is the “legal” definition of de novo, and the practical effect of de novo; often, the Administrative Judge at the MSPB will, at a PreHearing Conference, turn to OPM and say, Listen, OPM, it seems that the only reason why it was initially denied was because of X, Y & Z; the applicant certainly answered X & Y in his/her reconsideration answer; is the only thing you are looking for is Z?  What this does is to narrow the issue.  Often, to save time, face, aggravation and other things, OPM will concede the narrowing of such issues, and this is true if you respond to their administrative queries by defining what they are asking for, then providing it to them, then showing how it has been provided to them, so that they are “cornered”.  Thereafter, if it gets denied and it needs to go to the MSPB, the Hearing can then proceed with a narrower, streamlined and limited number of issues to prove.  Again, the reason why it is important to define what it is that OPM is asking for, is not only for the “present” case, but in preparation for the potential “future” case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal OPM Disability Retirement: Be Discerning

Posted on by
Reply

In many ways, there is too much information “out there” about anything and everything.  The area of Federal Disability Retirement Law under FERS & CSRS is no different (and, admittedly, the irony is that I may be adding to the compendium of information with my incessant blogs, articles, reflections, etc.).

The real problem, however, is not necessarily the quantity of information, but rather the quality — and for Federal and Postal employees who are attempting to understand all of the issues surrounding Federal Disability Retirement, it is often difficult to categorize and separate and distinguish between “good” information and “bad” information.

For instance, there is the local/district Human Resources personnel for an employee’s Agency.  Agency H.R. offices are made up of “people” — both good and bad, both competent and incompetent; both helpful and downright ornery.  Then, there is the Office of Personnel Management.  There are multiple internet sites, blogs, a plethora of lawyers (though, there are not that many lawyers who are versed in the area of Federal Disability Law).

The bottom-line issue is not one of “quantity” of information, but how to discern between “good” information and “bad” information.  Too often, a person will call me and tell me that “so-and-so told me that X occurs when you file for Federal Disability Retirement — is that true?”

My response as a Federal Disability attorney is of a standard nature:  I do not sit and argue or contradict some third person whom I have never met, and against a statement which may have been taken out of context.  Instead, I ask my caller, potential clients, and anyone and everyone who reads my writings, to look at the substance of what I write and say; review the consistency of what I have written, and make your own judgment:  Discern well by checking out the facts, and seeing if what others have said about me, or what I have said, rings true.  Be discerning.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS Disability Retirement Attorney