Tag Archives: owcp disability retirement really is usually meant “opm disability retirement”

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: An Aristotelian Approach

Posted on by
Reply

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics has been the primary foundation for the Western paradigm of proper behavior in philosophy. Quite distinct from his obtuse Metaphysics, the ethical framework of Aristotle takes a pragmatic, almost Confucian approach to correct behavior — balancing context, temperament, timing and correct behavior in formulating a modulated encompassment of how one should act.

As with all things in life, there must be a “balance” — and a recognition that time and relative context of affairs must be taken into consideration before one should act. In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, one must similarly recognize that there is an insight into the balance of life before one can proceed with any action, whether it is an administrative action before the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, or before one’s own agency.

A Federal Disability Retirement application must be “proven”; as such, there is a distinction to be made between that which one “experiences”, and that which one can “prove”.

In such a context, sometimes a medical retirement packet may take some time in order to fully develop and evolve. Doctors may not be able to be approached immediately; instead, at the right time, and in the right manner, they may be willing to provide the necessary medical and professional support in order to make one’s Federal Disability Retirement case successful and productive.

The pragmatic approach which Aristotle used in his ethics is still relevant today: at the right time, in the proper context, and taking into consideration the temperament of others. In this way, success can be attained by possessing an insight and wisdom into the world of human affairs. This was the approach of Aristotle; and so it was with Confucius.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

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: The Doctor

Posted on by
Reply

The lack of cooperation from a treating doctor, who is asked to provide a medical narrative report for a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, may be based upon one of several factors.

It may be that the doctor merely refuses to engage in any type of administrative support for his patients; it may be that the doctor has private suspicions that, to openly admit that his/her patient must file for Federal Disability Retirement means that his/her treatments have failed, and thus, the patient/disability retirement applicant is considering filing a malpractice action, and asking him/her to write a supportive medical narrative is merely a ploy to set the groundwork for a later malpractice action; it may just be bad bedside manners; or it may be that the doctor does not understand the Federal Disability Retirement process, and how it differs for Social Security Disability, or Worker’s Comp.

If it is the latter reason, then it is the job of the attorney to make sure and explain, delineate, and inform the doctor of the nature, extent, and context of Federal Disability Retirement — and to show how an approval for disability retirement benefits will be the best thing for his/her patient.  This is where an attorney representing an applicant for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS becomes a crucial component in the preparation of such an application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The New Year

Posted on by
Reply

The New Year is always a time of reflection, resolutions, and an insight as to how quickly time passes by. It seemed like yesterday that we were all amazed that we were entering the “Twenty-First Century”. In a span of a single year, circumstances change; people and perceptions become altered; friends and co-workers seemingly become transformed into strangers; and medical conditions which yesterday appeared irrelevant, contained or able to be endured, suddenly take on a life of its own.

Medical conditions are a reality which cannot be ignored. Then, of course, there is the problem of a medical condition, its impact upon one’s life, one’s employment, and one’s ability or inability to have an acceptable “quality of life” — as distinct from being able to convey a description of a medical condition in order to qualify for FERS & CSRS disability retirement benefits. It is in the describing of a medical condition, and the practical impact upon one’s employment, which is the key to Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS & CSRS. There is a distinction between the reality of a medical condition, and the ability to describe it to an impervious and implaccable agency — the Office of Personnel Management. Many think that, because one suffers from a medical condition, that it is enough to become eligible for disability retirement benefits. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) & Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)

Posted on by
2

I have received numerous telephone calls which indicate that there are many people who are confused, misinformed, or ill-informed about the issue of Social Security disability, filing for it, when to file for it, etc., in conjunction with filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS (obviously, if you are under CSRS, you do not need to file for it).  For informational purposes, here is the bottom line:  Whether or not you plan to actually qualify for Social Security disability benefits, the only concern with respect to meeting the requirement for the Office of Personnel Management, as part of the FERS disability retirement application, is as follows:  OPM really doesn’t care when you file, so long as you have filed and show a receipt on or before the day they approve your disability retirement application.

Thus, many people will tell me that they were “informed” by their Human Resources personnel that they must file with Social Security first before they can file for OPM disability retirement under FERS (not true); or, that they must have a decision by Social Security before they can file under FERS (even more untrue); or, that OPM will not even look at a federal disability retirement application unless you have first filed with Social Security (again, untrue).  The bottom line:  Yes, you must file for Social Security, but OPM doesn’t need to see a receipt showing that you filed, until the day they approve your OPM disability retirement application.  So, sometime before the Federal Disability Retirement application gets to OPM, or, in those cases where one has procrastinated for too long, even after the application gets to OPM, you need to file for Social Security disability benefits, and have a receipt ready to show OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Right Time

Posted on by
1

For each Federal and Postal employee, there is a “right” time to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS & CSRS.  By “right time”, I do not mean as to the proper timing in the actual filing of a Federal Disability Retirement case — i.e., whether it should be before or after separation from service, whether at the end of the year, the beginning of the year, etc.  No, by “right” time, I refer to the time when a Federal or Postal employee — that person who has put in all of those many years of loyal service, managed through pain, discomfort, overwhelming stresses, anxieties, fears, chronic and intractable pain, etc. — comes to the conclusion that he or she cannot continue in this mode of existence anymore.  Whether or not a Federal Disability Retirement case is filed with an agency or at the Office of Personnel Management in one month as opposed to another, is ultimately not of great importance; whether a person who is suffering from a medical condition for months, or years, and has been adept at hiding the daily pain and suffering — whether that person has come to a decision that it is now the “right time” to file for disability retirement, makes all the difference.  Each person must find that right time.  “How” and “when” are the two questions which must be answered, and only the Federal or Postal employee who is contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS can answer such questions.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Developing a Case

Posted on by
Reply

In most cases, the normal process of disability retirement for the First Stage of the process is anywhere from 6 – 8 months; some fall towards the 6-month range; some take longer than the 8-month range.  The difficulty in most cases is that the potential disability applicant/annuitant obviously wants to get through the process as quickly as possible, most often in order to get a sense of security for the future, that he or she will have the certainty of the Federal Disability Retirement annuity.  All of this is understandable.

The process — of preparing; of submitting; of waiting as it winds through the various Agency channels and finally to Boyers, PA and then to OPM in D.C. — is a process of high anxiety and anticipation.  Sometimes, however, cases must be patiently developed.  By “developed”, I merely mean that, at times, the doctor is not ready to provide the proper medical narrative report, or to state in explicit terms that a person is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of his or her job, and that the medical condition will last for at least one (1) year.

Patience with the doctor as different modalities of treatments are applied, is often crucial in the development of a case.  My involvement in a case, even before it is fully developed, is preferred, only if to guide the client as the medical case develops, or — as is often the case — on issues involving how to respond to an Agency which is just as anxious for the whole process to begin and end, as is the client.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

December 3rd, 2009

OPM Disability Retirement: After Separation from Service (Part 2)

Posted on by
1

Of course, it is always the separation from service based upon reasons delineated other than medically-based reasons which give rise to concerns in a federal disability retirement case.  Understand, however, that the “Bruner Presumption” is essentially a “scale-tipper” for the Office of Personnel Management (supposedly) and for the Administrative Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board (of somewhat greater certainty).  By this, I mean merely that, with or without the Bruner Presumption, a Federal Disability Retirement applicant under FERS or CSRS must still prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is eligible and entitled to federal disability retirement benefits. “Preponderance of the evidence” is essentially proof such that it is “more likely the case than not”.  Thus, when all things are equal, the Bruner Presumption is supposed to tip the scale in favor of the federal disability retirement applicant. 

On the other hand, if an individual was removed for reasons other than medically-based reasons — i.e., as a hypothetical, let’s say he was removed “for cause” — an act of dishonesty; failure to follow certain agency procedures; or whatever the case may be.  Does such a removal tip the scale the other way?  Not necessarily; however, it makes gathering the proper medical evidence that much more important, and what I often do is to try and tie in the underlying behavior which resulted in the removal “for cause”, with the medical basis — if at all possible.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Service Disability Retirement: After Separation from Service (Part 1)

Posted on by
Reply

It should be well established for anyone who has looked into Federal Disability Retirement issues, that a person has one (1) year from the time of separation from Federal Service to file for Federal Disability retirement benefits.  Separation from Federal Service can take many different forms:  Resignation; separation for cause; administrative separation based upon one’s medical inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job; etc.  The latter of these delineated forms (separation for medical inability to perform) is obviously the most beneficial to one contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement (first and foremost because it allows for the Bruner Presumption to be applied).

On the other hand, separation based upon a resignation is often neutral for issues concerning disability retirement (unless, of course, one has been foolish to put into his or her letter of resignation that the reason for the resignation is to go and become a professional poker player for the next year — but even then, if a medical condition existed prior to resignation, one might still be eligible for disability retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS); and, obviously, if the resignation was accompanied by a medical reason, and that particular medical reason was reflected in the SF 50, all the better.  Even separation for adverse actions — if there was a medical condition which existed prior to separation — can be explained away and fought for.

The point here is, regardless of the nature, reason and expressed rationale for separation from service, if a medical condition existed prior to separation from service, such that the medical condition prevented one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, there is a viable basis for filing for, and fighting for, Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire