Tag Archives: your treating doctors

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

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: Differing Perspectives

Posted on by
Reply

The old adage, “Walk in your fellow man’s shoes for a mile” is a saying which is meant essentially to teach a child (and many adults) to have a different perspective than one’s own, self-centered universe.  In practicing law, it is a good idea to attempt to obtain a perspective from the multitude of differing “shoes” — and this is especially important in putting together a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS. 

The gathering of such differing and different perspectives — that of the treating doctor; that of the applicant; that of the Agency (the Supervisor and the Agency in its determination that accommodation or reassignment is not available or appropriate for a given employee, given the particular medical conditions and the type of positional duties of the specific job which the Applicant must perform, as well as taking into account what constitutes “efficiency” in the Federal Service, etc.); and further, that of the Office of Personnel Management. 

It is the job of the Attorney representing a Federal or Postal employee in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement packet under FERS or CSRS, to pull together the various perspectives; write up and prepare, and gather the information from the multiple and differing perspectives; to neutralize those perspectives which may impact negatively upon the Federal disability retirement application; then to present the fullness of the different perspectives such that it meets the legal criteria and “perspective” of the Representative from the Office of Personnel Management:  that “ultimate” perspective which determines a “yes” or “no” in determining the viability of a Federal Disability Retirement Application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The Doctor’s Opinion

Posted on by
1

As an attorney who represents Federal and Postal employees to “obtain” Federal Disability Retirement benefits, it is important to make distinctions within the process of securing the Federal benefit:  while it is important to solicit and secure the medical opinion of the treating doctor, the resistance from such doctors — if in fact there is any resistance at all — most often comes about because the doctor doesn’t understand the “process”.

Doctors are medical providers.  They are in the practice of medicine because they believe in applying the science of medicine to help their patients get better.  Helping someone obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS is not part of “practicing medicine”.  Yet, in many ways, it is.  It is part of practicing medicine because, to allow the patient to continue to work in a job which he or she cannot perform, will only exacerbate and worsen the medical condition.

Further, doctors never like to “disable” their patients.  To counter this medical opinion, it is important to clearly inform the doctor what the process of Federal disability retirement is and is not.  It is the job of the attorney hired to represent a Federal or Postal worker to obtain disability retirement benefits, to clearly and cogently explain the entire process to the treating doctor.  That is what I do, at the very start, in representing my clients.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Thank the Medical Professionals

Posted on by
Reply

If not for the doctors and medical professionals, FERS Disability Retirement would obviously not be a possibility.  Of course, one may make the self-evident statement that being supportive of a Federal Disability Retirement application is simply part of a doctor’s job; and, to some extent, that would be true.  Doctors should indeed be willing to write up supportive medical narrative reports for their patients.

Nevertheless, it is because of the doctor, the effort expended, the willingness to testify at a Merit Systems Protection Board Hearing, that the Office of Personnel Management even listens, or reverses a prior denial, and approves a disability retirement application.  Especially when a case gets denied twice by the Office of Personnel Management, it becomes crucial to have the cooperation of the treating doctor to testify in an MSPB Hearing.

This is normally done by telephone, thereby making it a minimal imposition upon the doctor’s time.  Indeed, I often only take a total of 30 minutes of the doctor’s time, including preparation and actual testimony, for an MSPB Hearing.  But the very fact that the doctor is willing to testify — to speak to the Administrative Judge directly to give his or her medical opinion — is often enough to convince OPM to change course, and grant the FERS Disability Retirement benefits.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Patient/Applicant

Posted on by
Reply

Before even thinking about starting the process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS, it is important for the patient/applicant to approach his or her doctor and get an initial commitment of support. For, ultimately, the most essential lynchpin of a disability retirement application hangs on the support of a doctor — from the first and initial stage, all the way to the Merit Systems Protection Board (where live telephone testimony may be necessary).

The “patient” needs to approach the doctor with sensitivity. It is probably not even a good idea to talk about anything beyond the first stage of the process — instead, the focus should be about how “support” for a disability retirement application is actually part of the rehabilitation and healing process of medical treatment. For, ultimately, a disability annuitant under FERS or CSRS is not asking to be “totally disabled” by the doctor (and, indeed, most doctors do not want to release their patients into the retirement “pasture” of full disability); rather, it is simply a medical support of reasoning that a particular patient is no longer a “good fit” for a particular kind of job. Don’t scare the doctor off with a view of the “long process”; rather, the initial commitment is all that is needed — for the first stage of the process.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The Doctor

Posted on by
Reply

Doctors hate administrative duties. They went to medical school, and they want to practice medicine, not law. If they wanted to engage in vast amounts of paperwork, they would perhaps have gone to law school. As such, paperwork, writing medical narrative reports for their patients, providing medical opinions in a report — they are part and parcel of the dreaded “paperwork” — somewhat like filling out all of the forms for medicare, medicaid, insurance, etc. to get paid. Such paperwork is often left to the “administrative staff”, and therefore doctors are only sporadically required to actually prepare any paperwork. This presents a peculiar problem for a potential disability retirement applicant, because in order to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, an applicant must have a doctor’s narrative report which delineates certain issues, addresses certain issues, and renders certain opinions.

Thus, the crucial question becomes: How does one approach a doctor and convince him or her that preparing a proper medical report is an integral aspect of treating the patient? The answer: It must be done with diplomacy, sensitivity, caution, guidance, and understanding, all bundled into one. Above all, it begins with a relationship — a patient-doctor relationship that has been formed over many, many years. And, indeed, that is the requirement under the case-laws at the Merit Systems Protection Board governing disability retirements — that those opinions rendered by treating doctors of long duration are accorded greater credibility than single-examination doctors. And it all makes sense.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

The Affirmative Approach to OPM Disability Retirement Filing

Posted on by
Reply

The road which leads to one’s future financial security is irreversibly tied to the extent of how affirmatively one takes one’s future into one’s own hand (now, that was indeed a mouthful).  By this, I mean merely that, in preparing an application for Federal Disability Retirement, there are going to be all sorts of “outside forces” which pull you towards every different direction.  Friends will tell you one thing; your Agency will tell you something else; your coworkers will give you stories (both good and bad); your Human Resources Department may give you advice; ultimately, you must take an affirmative approach and make sure that your application is coherent, logically structured, and medically supported.

By way of example, an Agency’s Human Resources Department will often insist that the Physician’s Statement, SF 3112C, is a “required” form.  It is not.  They will often give you the form with the return address of the Agency stamped in the upper blank box, for the medical report and records to be returned to the H.R. Department.  Upon receipt, the H.R. Department simply includes the medical documentation (without review or determination that it is helpful to your case), and forwards the packet to the Office of Personnel Management.  This would be the “non-affirmative” approach of doing things.  To take the affirmative approach would be:  Make sure that the medical documentation you submit to OPM is the extent, type, and quality that you want to submit.

Remember:  the applicant has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that you are entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  Don’t let third parties (i.e., friends, coworkers, Agency, H.R. Department personnel, etc.) make the decisions for you.  Take the affirmative approach — either by yourself, or through your attorney.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Additional Comment on Medical Documentation

Posted on by
1

There are two (2) fundamental reasons why SF 3112C (Physician’s Statement) “doesn’t work” for physicians:  First, it is a government “form”.  It requests of a doctor to mechanically engage in the very performance of a duty which all doctors (generally speaking) hate:  writing up a report.  It does not provide for a context; it does not attempt to simplify the process for the doctor.  Second, for any doctor, it is an unappealing request.  To shove a government form which is written in fine print, and ask him to “follow the directions” is something all doctors (again, generally speaking) hate to do.

What I have found to be much more effective, is to provide a context and background — an “explanation” — to the doctor, concerning the medical disability retirement process.

That is one of the primary reasons why I never have my clients sign or submit an SF 3112C.  Aside from the danger of allowing for the blind release of any and all medical information to the Agency, and ultimately to the Office of Personnel Management when one signs the 3112C, it is simply not an effective means by which to obtain the necessary medical narrative report from the treating doctor.  To obtain an effective narrative report, it is important to have an attorney make a proper and thorough request.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire