Source: https://www.postalmag.com/retirement.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:05:56+00:00

Document:
Financial Assessment Tool: Use ThirdAge.com's financial assessment tool to analyze your entire financial picture.
Many employees believe that USPS retirement benefits are some of the most substantial in the nation. Many, upon reaching retirement age, are shocked to learn they will be facing a 50% to 75% or more loss in income after retirement. Although, postal retirement benefits may not be all that public legend has them to be, they can provide a secure retirement with the proper planning.
The new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 now allows the use of accrued unused sick leave hours to be added to total service in computing the retirement annuity of Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) employees. From October 28, 2009, through December 31, 2013, 50 percent of FERS employees' accrued unused sick leave hours will be added in the computing of their retirement annuity. Retirees after December 31, 2013, will have 100 percent of accrued unused sick leave hours added.
This new rule permits the counting of accrued unused sick leave only to calculate a FERS employee�s annuity. Sick leave may not be counted in determining eligibility to retire. The final computation will be made by the Office of Personnel Management and will use the appropriate percentage - either 50 percent or 100 percent of actual accrued unused sick leave hours at the time of retirement.
The NDAA also changed the rule for FERS employees who took refunds of their retirement contributions and have been reemployed under FERS. Now with the new ruling, they have the opportunity to pay back the refunded amount, plus interest. The redeposit will allow credit for the service in the retirement computation. Survivors of death-in-service employees may also make this deposit.
First, a quick clarification: I have had periodic calls concerning the time-frame in filing for disability retirement. The Statute of Limitations in filing for disability retirement is one year from the date you are separated from Federal Service -- not from the date you were injured, or from the time you stopped working, etc.
Do not become non-compliant in a treatment regimen, medication regimen, or any aspect of a reasonable medical regimen designed to treat the disease or injury. This is a sure way to have your disability retirement application denied. For, when an employee "is unable to render useful and efficient service because that employee fails or refuses to follow or accept normal treatment, it is wholly proper to say that the employee's disability flows, not from the disease or injury itself (as the statute requires), but from the employee's voluntary failure or refusal to take the available corrective or ameliorative action." Baker v. Office of Personnel Management, 782 F.2d 993, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (A word of caution: this does not mean that all surgeries must be consented to).
Do not have your treating doctors send in medical documentation directly to the Agency Personnel Office. Always take charge of your own disability retirement application. Have the doctors send the medical documentation to you, and personally review and inspect each page of your submission for accuracy, relevance, and applicability to your medical condition. Never blindly submit medical documentation to the Office of Personnel Management. Again, never give the Office of Personnel Management an additional reason to deny your disability retirement application. This advice, of course, goes "hand-in-hand" with my policy of never signing the SF 3112C (Physician's Statement), which often releases all of the medical documentation directly to the Agency.
I have often discussed the legal advantages of being separated from Federal Service for one's "medical inability to perform" one's job, which results in what is commonly known as the "Bruner Presumption," where such a termination results in a prima facie showing of his or her burden of proof. What this means is that, with such a termination, the "burden of production" shifts to the Office of Personnel Management, who must disprove your entitlement to disability retirement. Bruner v. Office of Personnel Management, 996 F.2d 290, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Bruner was a 1993 case, and still applies today. However, further developments since then have expanded the applicability of the Bruner Presumption, and they are of importance for those filing for disability retirement.
The Merit Systems Protection Board has held that removal for "extended absences is equivalent to removal for physical inability to perform where it is accompanied by specifications indicating that the decision to remove was based on medical documentation suggesting that the appellant was disabled and unable to perform her duties." McCurdy v. OPM, Docket #DA-844E-03-0088-I-1 (April 30, 2004), citing as authority Ayers-Kavtaradze v. OPM, 91 M.S.P.R. 397 (2002). What this means is that, the mere fact that a removal letter does not specifically state that you are being separated from service for you "medical inability to perform" your job, does not necessarily mean that you are not entitled to the Bruner Presumption. That is why it is often important to have an attorney involved in negotiating the terms of a removal action, especially where removal is an action about to happen. For instance, if it is becoming clear that you have been on LWOP for a period approaching a year, it might be a good idea to submit medical reports and documents showing the medical basis for your LWOP. Or, if a Notice of Proposed Removal has been issued, it is important to respond to such a proposal by submitting medical documentation establishing the basis for your non-attendance at work.
Indeed, as a rather funny aside, after I had submitted a legal memorandum and argued to a Judge during a Prehearing Conference that the Bruner Presumption should apply in a particular case, the Judge stated to me, "Mr. McGill, according to your argument, the Bruner Presumption should always apply!" To which I responded: "Your Honor, that would indeed be my preference."
Furthermore, it is also of vital importance to appeal a removal action whenever possible and legally permissible, especially where the removal action was based upon the alleged misconduct of the individual. Why? Because by appealing the removal action, you always stand the chance of coming to a compromise with the Agency, and having the Agency change the basis of the removal to one of "inability to perform the job" or, at the very least, to "resignation based upon medical problems." The case-law is consistent in holding that the Board will "generally give effect to the terms of a settlement agreement between an applicant for disability retirement and her employing agency in determining the applicant's entitlement to disability retirement." Jordan v. Office of Personnel Management, 77 M.S.P.R. 610, 614-17 (1998), recons. Denied, 86 M.S.P.R. 144 (2000); and Bynum v. OPM, DC-831E-00-0093-I-1 (June 29, 2001). Similarly, cases such as Morton v. OPM, PH-844E-99-0224-I-1 (June 28, 2001) -- where, while the Board found that the Appellant was not entitled to disability retirement, went out of its way to clarify the fact that the Administrative Judge was "improperly influenced by" the original removal action, and that the original removal action should not have been considered in making the determination concerning disability retirement entitlement. Similarly, in Lewis v. OPM, CH-831E-98-0434-I-2, the Board stated unequivocally that the Board "will give effect to the terms of a settlement agreement between an applicant for disability retirement and her employing agency, in determining the applicant's entitlement to disability retirement."
In other words, even if you were originally removed for misconduct, if your removal is later changed by a settlement agreement with the Agency, and you subsequently file for disability retirement, the Administrative Judge must keep a blind eye with respect to the original removal action.
In the course of representing Federal and Postal Workers to obtain disability retirement benefits, I have always tried to emphasize the fact that, while it is each individual's choice as to whether or not to hire an attorney, you should always proceed with the greatest tool available -- knowledge. Disability Retirement is a benefit accorded to all Federal and Postal Employees under FERS and CSRS. However, as with all benefits, the right to it remains unclaimed unless one proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one is legally entitled to it. To prove your claim, you must go at it from a position of strength -- and this requires knowledge. My name is Robert R. McGill, Esquire. I am an attorney who specializes in disability retirement claims. If you would like to discuss your particular case, you may contact me at 1-800-990-7932, or email me at DisabilityAtty@msn.com.
Many individuals who have filed for disability retirement benefits with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), get their applications rejected because they have not created the proper "nexus", or bridge, between their medical condition and the duties of their job. Remember, disability retirement is unlike Worker's Comp or Social Security. Under Worker's Comp, often the primary focus is to prove the causation between work and injury -- in other words, the "bridge" that needs to be constructed is one that shows that one's medical condition was directly caused by, or occurred at, the worksite. For Social Security disability, the focus is often upon establishing the existence of a specifically diagnosed medical condition, one which is accepted by the Social Security Administration as causing a 'debilitating' or 'disabling' condition, such that 'total disability' can be established. In each case, the "bridge" to be constructed is different. So it is also with disability retirement under OPM.
Remember that, for disability retirement under CSRS or FERS, it is not so important what the medical disability is, as it is to show that the symptoms one has impacts directly upon one's ability or inability to perform one's job. Indeed, in the bedrock case of Bruner v. OPM, 996 F.2d 290 (Fed.Cir. 1993), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals stated that it is the "relationship between the service deficiency and the medical condition," (emphasis added) which is one of the important "bridges" which must be established in a disability retirement case. Thus, I find that many individuals who have attempted to file for disability retirement at the first stage, and who have had his or her application denied, come to me because of a failure of creating a "nexus", or a bridge, between what the diagnosed medical condition is, and what the job requires. Thus, by way of a simple example, an applicant might think that because he or she suffers from severe knee problems, that one needs only to have the doctor give a diagnosis, attach some medical records, and expect that OPM will grant him disability retirement. This might be true if the individual's job is as a Letter Carrier for the U.S. Postal Service (although, even in such an instance, OPM will be very skeptical and require a complete explanation); but it might not work if you work as a Computer Specialist with a Federal Agency, where you have a sedentary position not requiring daily repetitive use of your knees. In either case, what is important is to have the doctor show how the medical disability impacts upon one's ability to perform his or her job. (In the latter example, it may be that the chronic pain in his knee requires a medication regimen of narcotic pain relievers, and such medication impacts upon his ability to focus upon a cognitively-intense job. In such a case, I have been able to get OPM to accept such a claim, even in a sedentary job).
Often, individuals make the mistake of treating disability retirement claims under FERS and CSRS as if it was a Social Security claim. However, the "official diagnosis", or name of the disability, is not important for disability retirement claims. Instead, it is the relationship between the symptoms one has, and the impact of those symptoms upon the requirements of the job. Similarly, neither 'causation' nor 'permanent and stationary' are relevant for disability retirement claims (whereas they are obviously important in OWCP cases). Indeed, I have had clients who, despite having serious and debilitating medical disabilities, had their claims rejected by the Office of Personnel Management. At the Reconsideration Stage, I have been successful at getting them approved, not by obtaining more medical documentation, but rather, by clearly outlining to the Office of Personnel Management, in detail, what the applicant's job required, and showing the relationship between the serious medical condition and the requirements of the job.
This is similarly true at the Merit Systems Protection Board (M.S.P.B.) level of an appeal in disability retirement claims (the Third Stage in the process). At the M.S.P.B. level, I always insist upon having a medical doctor testify via a telephonic hearing. At the Telephone Hearing, I always have the doctor explain, in methodical detail, the relationship between the medical disability, and the kind of job the Applicant is required to do. Indeed, this requirement of mine has been successful -- not because of my own "brilliance" (although, admittedly, I would like to think that I have some part in the success of a disability retirement claim), but rather, because that is what the law requires. Thus, in Dunn v. OPM, 60 M.S.P.R. 426, 432 (1994), the Board stated therein that 'absent a clear and reasoned explanation of how a medical condition affects an employee's specific work requirements, a physician's conclusions on disability are unpersuasive', appeal dismissed, 91 F.3d 169 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Again, note how the law requires you to show the relationship, or "bridge", between the medical condition and the type of job one performs.
Disability Retirement is a benefit accorded to all Federal and Postal Employees under FERS and CSRS. However, as with all benefits, the right to it remains unclaimed unless one proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one is legally entitled to it. In order to make such a claim valid, you must assert your legal right to it. My name is Robert R. McGill, Esquire. I am an attorney who specializes in disability retirement claims. If you would like to discuss your particular case, you may contact me at 1-800-990-7932, or email me at DisabilityAtty@msn.com.
"The rabbit had been able to elude the fox, hopping safely into the arms of a briar patch and out of the immediate reach of the hungry predator. Seeing that he would not be able to have the rabbit for a meal, he decided instead to show concern. "Are you alright, my friend?" he asked, trying to put on an expression of empathy.
"Quite well, thank you," replied the rabbit, still panting from the close call and looking to and fro with suspicion.
"Very well, then," said the fox, who began to walk away. He paused, turned around, and added, "I promise not to try and harm you anymore."
"Are you quite serious?" asked the rabbit, surprised at this sudden announcement.
At least once a month, I receive a call from an individual who has been on total disability with Federal Worker's Comp for several years. The individual has been separated from service from the Federal Government or the Postal Service for more than a year, and suddenly the Office of Workers Compensation Program sends the individual to a Second Opinion doctor, and thereafter issues a declaratory finding that he or she is no longer disabled, and can return to work.
-- Not only has that individual lost his OWCP benefits, but he has also lost his right to file for disability retirement under FERS or CSRS.
This is because, under the rules and regulations for disability retirement, an individual must file with the Office of Personnel Management within one year from the date he or she is separated from Federal Service (See 5 C.F.R. Sec. 844.201(a)(1) , where it states that, "Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section, an application for disability retirement is timely only if it is filed with the employing agency before the employee or Member separates from service, or with the former employing agency or OPM within 1 year thereafter.") Thus, a word of caution for those many individuals who receive the non-taxable payments from OWCP -- continue to remain on OWCP for as long as possible, because it is certainly financially advantageous over the taxable annuity amount received from FERS/CSRS disability retirement -- but always remember that OWCP is not a retirement system. If they don't cut your payments off today, there is always tomorrow (refer to the fox in the fable, above).
I always advise my disability retirement clients who are receiving OWCP benefits to remain on OWCP for as long as they can stand it (i.e., the persistent harassment, the constant oversight by so-called "2nd opinion doctors", etc.) -- but to always have the FERS/CSRS disability retirement annuity approved as a back-up source of income. Individuals may file for disability retirement concurrently while on OWCP -- but you simply cannot collect from both at the same time (See 5 C.F.R. Sec. 844.105, "Relationship to workers' compensation. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an individual who is eligible for both an annuity under part 842 or 844 of this chapter and compensation for injury or disability under subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code (other than a scheduled award under 5 U.S.C. 8107(c)), covering the same period of time must elect to receive either the annuity or compensation. " ) Thus, when OWCP terminates your payments (and there is a very good chance that this will happen at some point in the near future), it is a wise option to have your disability retirement benefits approved, but held in an inactive status. You have every right to elect one benefit over the other. Indeed, if you wanted to, you are allowed to go back and forth between OWCP and FERS/CSRS disability retirement.
As a secondary issue on this matter, take a close look at 5 U.S.C. Section 8106 on "partial disability," and compare that definition with the definition for disability retirement. In Section 8106 (OWCP), the definition states in paragraph (c) (2) that "A partially disabled employee who refuses or, neglects to work after suitable work is offered to, procured by, or secured for him, is not entitled to compensation." This means that if OWCP secures a job for you as a Walmart greeter (you know, those individuals who smile and say hello to you as you walk into the Walmart Superstore), and pay you the difference between your salary and what Walmart pays -- and you decide to say "no," OWCP has every right to cut off your payments. On the other hand, under the laws concerning FERS & CSRS disability retirement, 5 C.F.R. Sec. 844.103 (a)(2) states that, in order to be eligible for disability retirement, the individual "must, while employed in a position subject to FERS, have become disabled because of a medical condition, resulting in a deficiency in performance, conduct, or attendance, or if there is no such deficiency, the disabling medical condition must be incompatible with either useful and efficient service or retention in the position." The difference here is that, under OWCP, if you are 'partially disabled,' if you are offered any job that OWCP believes you can do, you must accept it. On the other hand, under FERS/CSRS disability retirement laws, if you are partially disabled -- meaning that you simply cannot do at least one or more of the essential elements of your job -- then you are entitled to disability retirement benefits, and your agency or the Postal Service cannot simply offer you any job; they must offer you a job in the same pay or grade, and one in which you are qualified or, if you are in the Postal Service, then it must an accommodation in the same craft. Under the former (OWCP), you have no control over your future (OWCP determines your future); under the latter (disability retirement), you can obtain disability retirement benefits, and then take control of your future and work at another job of your choice, and make up to 80% of what your (former) position pays, and still continue to receive your disability annuity.
Experiencing a medical disability is a traumatic, life-changing event. Financial concerns are always part of this life-changing event, and it is important to secure one's financial future to the greatest extent possible. Obtaining disability retirement -- both the annuity as well as the health insurance benefits -- is often the difference between a secure future and financial poverty. It is therefore extremely important to look upon disability retirement as a lifetime investment -- one which must be obtained with an aggressive plan and approach.
I am an Attorney who represents Federal and Postal workers from all across the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. I do not charge for telephone consultations. If you would like to contact me, you may call me at 1-800-990-7932, or email me at DisabilityAtty@msn.com. I also advertise in the Attorney Directory of the Federal Times.
The Office of Personnel Management is constantly and aggressively attempting to change the laws concerning disability retirement, to make disability retirement laws more difficult to overcome. Such attempts at changing the law always comes in incremental steps, and may not seem like "blockbuster" cases at the time; but the reverberating effects of such cases can be far-reaching, and impact upon Federal and Postal Workers for years to come.
Issue #1: In the well-known case of Bruner v. Office of Personnel Management, 996 F. 2d 290 (Fed. Cir. 1993), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found that where a person is separated for "physical inability to perform his job," that the "burden of production" shifts to the government. This is well-known as the "Bruner Presumption." In laymen terms, this merely means that if a person is terminated or separated from Federal Service because of his or her "physical inability to perform the job," then it is almost a certainty that we can get disability retirement for that Federal/Postal worker. That is why it is extremely important to have an attorney involved in the separation process -- to negotiate the type of language which is acceptable. This is more the case now, because the Office of Personnel Management is appealing a recent case to the Full M.S.P.B. Board involving a case where the worker was separated for "unavailability for duty," even though the "unavailability" was clearly for medical reasons. OPM argued that, because the worker was not specifically separated for "physical inability to work," but instead, because he was "unavailable," that therefore the "Bruner Presumption" should not apply.
This is, to use a well-known legal term, "hogwash."
OPM should know better. What OPM ignores, is that the Court in Bruner went on to say that "the government's action in separating an employee for disablement produces a presumption of disability..." Furthermore, there are been recent holdings which support the position that lack of precision in the language of separation should not preclude invocation of the Bruner Presumption. For instance, in Lewis v. Office of Personnel Management, 87 M.S.P.R. 275 (2000), the Board held that a charge of "inability to work" warranted application of the Bruner Presumption; and again in Bell v. Office of Personnel Management, 87 M.S.P.R. 1 (2000), the Board applied the Bruner Presumption where, although the Agency charged the appellant with failure to meet the requirements of her position, it was clear that the agency removed the appellant because it found her unable to perform her duties based on medical evidence of psychological incapacitation.
Thus, what the Office of Personnel Management is trying to do, is to narrowly limit the application of the Bruner Presumption. The Lesson here is: If termination or separation is an issue, or a potential issue, get an attorney.
Issue #2: As many of you know, I have previously discussed the important case of Bracey v. Office of Personnel Management, 236 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It is an important case which directly impacts upon the issue of accommodation.
More recently, however, the problem has been that the Office of Personnel Management has questioned -- no, let me go further -- they have challenged, the applicability of the Bracey decision for Postal Employees. While I have previously pointed out that the combination of 5 U.S.C. Section 8451(a)(2)(D), which states that "an employee of the United States Postal Service shall not be considered qualified for a position if such position is in a different craft or if reassignment to such position would be inconsistent with the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement covering the employee," and further, pointed out that in Smith v. Office of Personnel Management, Docket #AT-844E-00-0140-I-1 (March, 2001), the Merit Systems Protection Board concluded that, where the Postal Service attempted to "accommodate" a disabled Rural Carrier by assigning her to duties or positions in the Clerk craft, it did not constitute "accommodation", and therefore disability retirement was granted to the employee; nevertheless, OPM is at it again. In 2 or 3 cases all at once (and one in which I am involved in), OPM is trying to argue that (1) the Bracey decision does not apply to Postal Workers, and therefore the Postal Service can slot workers from one craft to do jobs of another craft, and (2) that the Postal Service has a duty under the collective bargaining agreement to "accommodate" Postal Employees, even if it means doing work in a different craft. If OPM wins in these arguments, what it means is that the Postal Service can potentially take an injured Letter Carrier, and have him sit in a room doing odd jobs devised by his or her supervisor.
Thus far, OPM has not been successful in their arguments. Indeed, it is important that Postal and Federal employees applying for disability retirement take great care in fighting the various arguments of OPM. Each fight which OPM wins, creates a greater obstacle to potential future disability retirement filers.
Disability retirement is a benefit which all Federal and Postal Employees should be able to have access to, if and when the need arises. However, there is a large chasm between having the right, and being able to access that right. The road between the two is often beset with legal obstacles and potholes. How to maneuver through the legal maze is the job of the Attorney.
"Strike three...you're out!" screamed the umpire.
"How could I miss all three times?" asked the young boy, dejectedly, as he walked back to the dugout.
Individuals attempting to file for disability retirement, either under FERS or CSRS, on their own, and without an attorney, must meet the same standards, same criteria, and same legal thresholds, as those who are represented. While it may cost an individual in the short term to hire an attorney, that cost may be insignificant compared to the loss of a long-term investment -- the monthly annuity income which may span years, and even decades, depending upon your age.
In applying for disability retirement under FERS or CSRS, you essentially have three shots at succeeding. First, there is the initial stage of review before the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). If OPM denies the application at this initial stage, you may Request Reconsideration -- and at this stage, you are given an opportunity to submit additional medical and other documentation, as well as make legal arguments. If OPM refuses you the second time, you may appeal your case to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and have an administrative judge independent of the Office of Personnel Management, hear your case.
There are two additional stages -- an appeal to the Full Board, as well as a further appeal to the Court of Federal Appeals; however, to have either of these legal bodies reverse the decision of an MSPB judge is extremely difficult.
The problem with individuals attempting to obtain disability retirement on their own, is their lack of knowledge of the legal standards required. This then leads to making the same mistake at each stage of the process. The key is to know what the legal standard is; to recognize that the "benefits clerk" at OPM is not necessarily an individual who knows what he or she is talking about, and to point out the error of OPM's decision (courteously, but firmly), and to rebut any arguments made by OPM. This then lays out a successful foundation in the event that your case must be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Time, care, money and investment at preparing your case at Stage 1 will avoid a needless denial of your disability retirement application.
Unrepresented individuals who have had their applications denied have come to me with the letter from OPM blatantly misstating the applicable law. For example, I have come across some denial letters which state in the "Discussion" section, that the applicant "has failed to establish that he is totally disabled from performing his job." To begin with, this is not the legal standard. Second, OPM knows better than to make such a statement, but will often do so -- knowing that the unrepresented individual does not know better. Third, such a statement from OPM implies further that a concrete nexus must be proven between one's medical disability and the performance of one's job, when in fact more recent M.S.P.B. cases have relaxed the standards. However, if you are representing yourself, you will not be aware of the more recent cases, and such lack of knowledge may well be to your detriment.
Ever since the case of Mullins-Howard v. Office of Personnel Management, 71 M.S.P.R. 619, 627 (1996), in which the Board stated that an employee's entitlement to disability retirement does not always turn on a "finely tuned correlation between particular medical impairments and specific job requirements," the Board has often softened their legal standards based upon individual circumstances. For example, in Thieman v. Office of Personnel Management, 78 M.S.P.R. 113, 116-117 (1998), the Board held that an appellant's medical condition may be incompatible with useful and efficient service even if the disability detrimentally affects just one of the critical elements of his position. Thus, while in the past, strong medical evidence -- unequivocal and almost irrefutable -- was the only basis upon which to win a disability retirement case, more recent cases have seriously considered the appellant's own testimony of subjective pain and inability to work, particularly where it is supported by "competent" medical evidence. See Davis v. Office of Personnel Management, 89 M.S.P.R. 690 (2001); Mansfield v. Office of Personnel Management, 67 M.S.P.R. 40, 43 (1995); and Cole v. Office of Personnel Management, 88 M.S.P.R. 54, 58-59 (2001), where the Board held that the appellant's own testimony of subjective pain and inability to work must be "seriously" considered, particularly where it is supported by competent medical evidence; and further, finely tuned correlation between particular medical impairments and specific job requirements were "unnecessary" to prove her claim.
Being armed with a thorough knowledge of the law is the only way to refute the Office of Personnel Management, who may or may not base its decision upon the correct interpretation of the law. Just as the boy who swung the bat the same way at three different pitches -- and missed each time -- an individual who files for disability retirement must approach each stage of the process in different ways, and respond with force and confidence, armed in the knowledge of the law.
Management, 236 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This is an important case which directly impacts upon the issue of accommodation.
One of the threshold issues which a disability retirement applicant must overcome, is the issue of whether or not the Agency can accommodate the individual s medical disability. Much confusion surrounds this issue, and many a Federal and Postal employee has been denied his or her disability retirement because they slam into the brick wall called accommodation.
To begin with, 5 C.F.R. Sec. 831.1203 (a)(4) states that the employing agency must be unable to accommodate the disabling medical condition in the position held or in an existing vacant position. This definition was further clarified in the case of Bracey, when the Court therein stated unequivocally that if the Agency wants to accommodate you, it must be so that you can do the job you are presently slotted for. Thus, keeping you officially slotted in a given position, but in reality having you do some light-duty, other kind of job, is not considered an accommodation. As the Court clearly stated, an agency cannot stop a disability retirement application by assigning an injured employee to an ad hoc set of light duties as long as it continues to pay the employee at the same level as before. (Page 1362 in Bracey) This is especially important for Federal employees who are being relegated to odds & ends jobs in some corner desk and declared by their Agency to have been accommodated. The law clearly states that this does not constitute legal accommodation.
For Postal Employees, it is important to be additionally aware of 5 U.S.C. Section 8451(a)(2)(D), which states that an employee of the United States Postal Service shall not be considered qualified for a position if such position is in a different craft or if reassignment to such position would be inconsistent with the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement covering the employee. In Smith v. Office of Personnel Management, Docket #AT-844E-00-0140-I-1 (March, 2001), the Merit Systems Protection Board concluded that, where the Postal Service attempted to accommodate a disabled Rural Carrier by assigning her to duties or positions in the Clerk craft, it did not constitute accommodation, and therefore disability retirement was granted to the employee. Thus, for the Postal Employee, putting together the Bracy decision, plus 5 U.S.C. Section 8451(a)(2)(D), and the Smith decision C all together means that (a) if you cannot do the essential duties of your particular craft and (b) your particular medical disability cannot be accommodated, then (c) the Postal Service cannot force you to perform duties normally reserved for other Crafts, and declare that you have thereby been accommodated.
Lack of legal knowledge is dangerous; possessing partial knowledge is often confusing; being armed with full knowledge can lead to success. Remember, disability retirement is a benefit which you, as a Federal or Postal employee, earned after 18 months (for FERS) or 5 years (for CSRS) of Federal service. If a Federal or Postal employee becomes medically disabled, disability retirement must be looked upon as an investment, and as a rightful benefit earned by his or her service to the Federal Government. One should not throw away such an investment/ benefit by being ignorant of the law.
Under FERS, must you first file for Social Security disability benefits before you file with OPM? Whether intentionally or through innocent ignorance, many HR managers are informing Federal and Postal workers that they must first file for, and receive a determination from, the Social Security office before they can file for disability retirement with the Office of Personnel Management. This is categorically untrue. While an applicant does need to file for Social Security disability benefits at some time during the process, all that is needed is the receipt that he or she has filed for it. Do not allow for misinformation to delay your filing.
The danger of cashing a $5.00 check: Under 5 C.F.R. 844.301, the Federal Regulations state in relevant part: A disability annuity under this part commences on the day after the employee separates or the day after pay ceases and the employee meets the requirements for title to an annuity. I once represented a client who had filed for disability retirement on his own, got it denied, then came to me at the reconsideration stage. Prior to coming to me, he had not worked for over a year, but had recently received a check in the amount of $5.00, which he promptly deposited into his bank account. After successfully reversing OPM's denial and securing his disability retirement, the Office of Personnel Management began paying him his disability annuity "the day after pay ceases" - meaning, the day after he was paid the $5.00. Fortunately, I was able to have the Agency accept back the $5.00, and backdate the annuity to when he last worked. However, not all cases will necessarily end with such success. You must be aware of the laws which govern disability retirement, or you are in peril of being at the mercy of your own ignorance.
If at first you don't succeed, try again with the assistance of an attorney before the statute of limitations runs out: I have had many people over the years call me and tell me that they were denied at the initial stage, the reconsideration stage, and at the MSPB stage - and would I be willing to file for a Petition for Full Review - and, by the way, in the meantime, it has been over a year since he or she was separated from Federal Service. In such a case, you have limited your options by allowing the one-year rule to run its course, leaving only a shot at the appellate level to win your case. While I almost never advise an individual to forego his or her administrative right of appealing a denial decision, in certain special circumstances, it is prudent to withdraw one's ill-prepared disability retirement application and to re-file all over again, before the one-year statute of limitations runs out. This decision, however, must obviously be made before the one-year statute of limitations has already run its course. Furthermore, such a decision must be made on a case-by-case basis, but this is precisely why it is important to view your disability retirement application as a lifetime investment, to be fully aware of the laws which bind you, and why competent legal representation is important.
Many clients come to me after having attempted to file for disability retirement benefits on their own. Having been denied once, they are now in what is called the "Reconsideration Stage". It is often a purely financial decision for a person to file for disability retirement without the assistance of an attorney; however, in doing so, many pitfalls may abound, and it may be difficult to correct mistakes already made. While claims may be denied at the first stage for a variety of reasons, one consistently recurring reason for a denial is the insufficiency of the medical documentation. Remember two (2) fundamental rules in disability retirement applications: First, never - NEVER - sign a Physician's Statement (SF 3112C) and allow the Office of Personnel Management to have indiscriminate access to your medical records, and Second, quality of medical records is more important than volume. Indeed, I have been able to pass through a number of disability retirement applications based upon a one-page narrative or progress note, while clients who had previously attempted to file on their own and who had submitted 300+ pages of medical documentation had their applications denied before coming to me.
Always remind yourself that this is a medical disability retirement application. Long-winded personal testimonials about your medical conditions are nice, but they do not strike at the heart of the issue. If you cannot afford to hire an expert in the field of disability retirement to prepare and file your application for you, at least try to give yourself the best chance possible by keeping in mind the following: In the recent case of Tan-Gatue v. O.P.M. 90 M.S.P.B. 116 (2001), the Board stated that they have "consistently found that medical conclusions based on a long familiarity with a patient are of greater weight than those based on a brief association or single examination." Furthermore, "the Board gives greater deference to medical opinions that are supported by reasoned explanations than it gives to mere conclusory assertions." In other words, make sure and have your treating doctor write a "quality" narrative in explaining why you are unable to perform the essential elements of your duties.
Whenever I am hired, one of the first things that I do is to write a 3-page letter to each of the medical providers, outlining the type of medical report which is needed to allow the disability retirement applicant to obtain his or her annuity. This letter is important in guiding the doctor to provide a "quality" medical narrative in preparing the disability retirement packet. Remember, disability retirement is a benefit granted to all Federal and Postal employees, but it is merely a "passive" benefit unless and until you affirmatively prove your case that you are entitled to it. Prepare your disability retirement application as if it is a lifetime investment; for, indeed, it is a lifetime investment. If you believe that you need to consult an attorney concerning disability retirement, please contact me at 1-800-990-7932, or email me at DisabilityAtty@msn.com. My ad also appears weekly in the Federal Times.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.