Tag Archives: US Postal Disability

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

 

OPM Disability Retirement and Paradigms for the Future

Posted on by
Reply

In attempting to decide to file for Federal Disability Retirement Benefits, it is often the case that Social Security disability benefits must be considered (not just “considered”, obviously, for FERS employees, because it is a requirement to file for it), and how seriously and vigorously; and further, whether to pursue, or to continue on, OWCP temporary total disability benefits.  These are “paradigms” that must be considered for the future.  By “paradigm”, I mean that they represent “models” of how a person wants his or her future to be based upon.

For instance, let’s take the paradigm of Social Security disability benefits.  Because FERS employees who file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits must also file for Social Security disability benefits (to see if they qualify; and, if qualified, the offsetting features will apply), one must take into consideration whether or not a Federal or Postal employee will actually want Social Security disability benefits.  This question arises because Social Security has a “cap” in which a person who receives Social Security disability benefits can make ancillary earned income (roughly no more than $16,000 per year in 2021).

Because of this, one must think of the future paradigm of one’s life:  If a person on FERS Disability Retirement wants to go out and get a part-time job, or start on a path for another career, where he or she makes 15, 20, 25,000 per year or more (because remember, a person can make up to 80% of what a person’s former Federal or Postal job currently pays), then he or she may not want to get Social Security disability benefits.

Most people who are on Federal disability retirement are simply disabled from performing one or more of the essential elements of the particular job; they are not “totally disabled”, and therefore are able to go out and start a second career.  This is the “paradigm” for the future which must be considered, and such a model for the future must be carefully thought through.  Next:  the OWCP paradigm.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Waiting Too Long

Posted on by
Reply

My approach to Federal Disability Retirement law is that there are very few, if any, mistakes made by the applicant which cannot be corrected, amended, or explained, especially where the essential ingredients of a “good” case are in existence: a supportive doctor; a position/duties which are incompatible with the type of disabling health conditions one suffers from, etc.

However, I receive telephone calls periodically where the individual simply has waited “too long”.  Thus, to clarify: If you’ve been denied twice by the Office of Personnel Management, and you have a Hearing before an Administrative Judge 3 days from today, then you have probably “waited too long” (although, if you can get a postponement, or suspension of the case, there may still be time).

If you’ve been denied by OPM and the Merit Systems Protection Board has already denied your case, then you have probably “waited too long”.  Or, if you have been denied by OPM and by the MSPB and by the Full Board, then you have probably “waited too long”.

I hope that I am getting the point across by overstating the case — while each individual must decide when it is the “right time” to get a lawyer to help in filing for disability retirement cases, and yes, while I take on cases at all stages of the process, the point is quite simple: It is better to have the expertise of an experienced attorney earlier, than later.  In most cases, that means at the very beginning of the process.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

 

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

FERS Disability Retirement: The First Denial

Posted on by
Reply

Your Federal disability retirement application was well-prepared:  perhaps it was prepared with the help of an attorney; the medical documentation seemed solidly unequivocal; the doctor made the necessary connections between one’s medical conditions and the type of essential elements of one’s job; the packet, by all accounts, should have been approved, and by all expectations, the approval should have been reasonably expected.

Instead, you receive a letter stating that your disability retirement application was disapproved, and a “Discussion” section follows, explaining why the Office of Personnel Management denied your application.  Why did this happen?  There are multiple reasons why such a denial can occur:  the OPM specialist could be a person who lacks a clear understanding of the applicable laws governing disability retirement applications (more often than not, this is the case, and what you actually get in the so-called “Discussion” Section of the denial letter is merely a regurgitation of the statutory criteria for eligibility for disability retirement, without a recognition of the interpretation of such criteria by Federal Judges for the Federal Court of Appeals or by Administrative Judges from the Merit Systems Protection Board); it could be as simple as the OPM representative selectively choosing to read the medical reports and records, and disregarding or ignoring supportive portions of the medical records and reports; or it could be that additional medical reports and records need to be obtained in order to “shore up” the application.

In any event, whatever the reason for the denial, one should not panic.  It is merely one step in a long, administrative process.  The mere fact that OPM denies your disability retirement application does not mean that they are “right” in doing so; indeed, in my opinion, they are rarely right.  That is why one has the right to have it “reconsidered”, and the opportunity to make further legal arguments, and obtain further medical documentation in support of your claim.  And, beyond that, you have the right to file an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board — and beyond.  Never give up; always take it to the next step.  In most cases, it will prove that OPM was in error, and in fighting the denial, you will have secured some semblence of financial security for your future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Responsibility of the Office of Personnel Management

Posted on by
1

Perhaps it is an anomaly to even speak about the issue of “the responsibility” of the Office of Personnel Management — at least, from the general consensus of experiences as told by countless individuals who have filed for disability retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management, especially in recent years, one might conclude that OPM is slow to respond, or often refuses to respond at all.

However, to be fair, OPM — as with all other Federal Agencies — is made up of individuals; and the “good” or “bad” of an Agency is entirely dependent upon such individuals.  Most of the disability retirement specialists at OPM are, in my opinion, of the “good” sort.  Without naming names, there are a few of the “bad” sort.  Of course, that says very little, because such a generalized statement could be true of all Federal Agencies.

Moreover, OPM is presently short-staffed, overworked, and way behind on the processing of disability retirement claims.  What used to be a 60-day wait at the initial application stage is taking 90 – 120 days; and at the Reconsideration (2nd) Stage, what used to take 90 days is now taking 120 – 150 days, in many cases.

More than the “time” it takes, however, just remember that the primary responsibility of OPM is to take a careful and serious look at your disability retirement application/packet.  Also, remember that those disability retirement packets which are streamlined, logically constructed, and coherently argued, are the ones which will likely be quickly processed.  Don’t just strap a volume of medical records onto an application and hope for approval; in this day and age, it might be a wise investment to hire an attorney to “streamline” your packet.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The First Denial

Posted on by
Reply

One should not be overly panicked when the Office of Personnel Management denies a disability retirement application at the initial stage of the process.  Certainly, the denial needs to be taken seriously; the basis for the denial (which is often couched in confusing terms, based upon conflicting — almost contradictory — assertions and claims) must be identified and addressed; additional medical documentation may be needed; the proper legal authorities must be cited.

To put it bluntly:  while it is almost always a good idea to prepare, present, and file a Federal Disability Retirement application with the assistance, guidance and counsel of an attorney, it is essential that an OPM disability retirement denial be rebutted by an attorney who is familiar with the process, the laws, and the compelling arguments necessary in answering the reasons as stated in the “Discussion” section of OPM’s denial letter.

To panic is merely to waste time; to prepare is the wise course; to map out a cogent plan on how to win at the Reconsideration Stage — and, if necessary, the next stage of appeal, the Merit Systems Protection Board — is the wisest approach.  As Easter is a time of renewal, and Spring is now upon us, during the next few weeks, I will be “going back to basics” and reviewing  the process, the law, and the methodology of effectively applying to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits for FERS & CSRS employees.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: Reasonable Accommodation by the Agency

Posted on by
2

Often, aside from having submitted insufficient medical documentation to support a Federal Disability retirement application, the Office of Personnel Management will deny a case based upon a statement submitted by the Supervisor, normally on SF 3112B (aptly entitled, “Supervisor’s Statement”).

Now, in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, I rarely worry about what will be on a Supervisor’s Statement, primarily because the applicant rarely has any control over the contents of the statement, anyway, and therefore to focus upon that which one has little or no control over, is simply a waste of time.  Instead, I focus upon obtaining an overwhelmingly convincing medical narrative report from the doctor, which then essentially makes the Supervisor’s Statement — if it is viewed somewhat as “negative evidence” by the Office of Personnel Management — a moot and irrelevant point of contention.

More often than not, when the Office of Personnel Management refers to the Supervisor’s Statement as revealing some basis for denying a disability retirement application, I find that OPM has either mis-read the import of the statement, or has selectively misquoted from the Supervisor’s Statement.

Remember that the law requires that the Agency provide a “reasonable accommodation”; more often than not, what the Supervisor or the Agency has provided, is neither “reasonable”, nor an “accommodation” under the law.

In any event, whether by misquote, unfair and selective reasoning, misreading, “unreasonable”, or not an “accommodation” at all, I rarely find that the Supervisor’s Statement is helpful or unhelpful; and, certainly, I have never found that a Supervisor’s Statement contains any substance which would or should be the basis of a denial from the Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS Disability Retirement: The Federal Worker

Posted on by
1

Whether you work for the U.S. Postal Service, the FAA, the Secret Service, OSHA, FDIC, or one of the other countless governmental agencies, don’t ever think that filing for FERS Disability Retirement is an “act of surrender” or one which is somehow “taking advantage of the system”.

In the private sector, it is the salary-compensation that is emphasized.  In the Federal sector, it is the “total package” of benefits:  less salary-based emphasis, more on other benefits, such as health insurance, life insurance, set number of days for annual leave and sick leave — and OPM Disability Retirement benefits.

Thus, filing for Federal Disability Retirement is not a “welfare” move — rather, it is an acknowledgment that you can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of your job, and you are no longer a “good fit” for that particular job.  Remember that, when filing for Federal Disability Retirement, the Agency itself must attempt to see whether it can (A) reassign you to another job at the same pay or grade (which is almost never) or (B) legally accommodate you (which, also, is almost never).

Further, FERS Disability Retirement is not a benefit which pays you such that you can “live high on the hog”; rather, it is a base annuity, with the understanding that you can go out and get another job making up to 80% of what your former position currently pays.  In other words, in most cases, you are expected to go out and be productive in other ways.

Far from being a “welfare benefit” — it is part of the total compensation package you signed onto, and to which the Federal government agreed to.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS Disability Retirement: Cases before an MSPB Judge

Posted on by
Reply

When putting on a disability retirement case under FERS or CSRS before the Merit Systems Protection Board, it is essential that an applicant (if unrepresented) and the attorney (if represented, the applicant need not participate in any Prehearing Conference, but will obviously encounter the Judge during the Telephone Hearing) listens to the Administrative Judge during any Pre-Hearing Conference.

Many Administrative Judges are probably willing to help the appellant.  While judges are unable to render legal advice or to actually lend counsel to the appellant, many administrative judges go out of their way to clearly outline for the Appellant the tools needed to persuade and win the case.

Administrative Judges, for the most part, actually want to root for the appellant, and want you to put on a good case to persuade them to rule in your favor. In my opinion, an appellant should have an attorney at the Merit Systems Protection Board.  At a Prehearing Conference, I listen carefully at any special concerns or comments which an Administrative Judge may make — because such concerns are often the key to winning the case for my client. Remember — judges are human; they want to root for the underdog; deep inside they want you to win your case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire