Tag Archives: considerations before resigning from the us postal service

Postal Medical Retirement: Understanding the Basics of a FERS Disability Application

Posted on by
Reply

Success is often achieved as a result of multiple factors:  Opportunities presented, recognized and acted upon; knowledge enough to take advantage of; the ability to see what others have failed to appreciate; the effective utilization of knowledge.  Within the universe of knowledge, it is often stated that people who amass enormous wealth are not necessarily “smarter” than your average Joe (for whatever reason, “Joe” has been the commonplace proper name to designate Everyman; but for those who may be offended as to its gender non-neutrality, you may insert, “Josephine”, as well), but for whatever reason, can pinpoint commercial opportunities better than others.  In short, when knowledge is applied for specific means, those who are “successful” are able to extrapolate knowledge relevant to the issue at hand, and discard irrelevant and extraneous material efficiently.

Postal employee back pain

Federal Disability Retirement benefits, under FERS (Rhetorical question:  Are there any Federal or Postal employees under the old system — CSRS — anymore?) has a long history of MSPB decisions of precedence, as well as Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinions, which have cumulatively modified, altered, clarified and strengthened the benefit for Federal and Postal employees.  Going through the compendium of complex case-law opinions, however, without first understanding the “basics” of its origination based upon statutory authority, can lead one astray by unduly focusing upon those “secondary” arsenal of legal weapons — like VA Disability Ratings; removal for one’s medical inability to perform the job, or even from “excessive absences” but still being able to argue for the Bruner Presumption; the impact of an SSDI approval; and other such corollary legal precedents which can be argued.  Thus, it is always important to begin with the “basics”, then to build one’s foundation on the originally-established  statutory authority.  And so, let us begin with that which is outlined in 5 C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations), part 844, where it states in relevant part:

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, an individual must meet the following requirements in order to receive a disability annuity:

(1) The individual must have completed at least 18 months of civilian service that is creditable under FERS, as defined in § 842.304 of this chapter;

Thus, the minimum eligibility requirement mandates 18 months of civilian service.  Applicants should be advised, however, that the 18-month time of service — while meeting the minimum eligibility requirement — will not translate into a “full” disability retirement annuity.  This is because the calculations involved in determining the annuity amount will be based upon the “average of the highest 3-years (36 month)” of consecutive service, and therefore, the annuity will be determined by a divisor of 3, and not by 1.5.  This is important, because the 60% rate for the first year, followed by the 40% rate of annuity in the subsequent years until one reaches the age of 62 (at which point the annuity becomes recalculated based upon the total number of years of one’s service, including the time that one is on disability retirement), will be a lower amount from that of a person who has had at least 36 months of Federal Service.

The statute / regulation then goes on to state:

(2) 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;

Thus, there is a 4-part criteria, or “test”, in determining eligibility for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement, beyond merely acquiring 18 months of Federal Service.  The picture that needs to be painted for every individual contemplating filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, is this:  There is a wall.  That wall is entitled, “The U.S. Office of Personnel Management”.  On the left side of the wall are people who say things like, “It is difficult”; “I am struggling”; “I am having a difficult time doing my job”.  On the right side of the wall are people who simply say, “I cannot do my job.”  Most people are on the left side of the wall.  How do I, as a Postal Disability Attorney, help lift you from the left side of the wall over to the right side of the wall?  So, the question must be asked to the potential client:  Do you have any deficiencies in performance, conduct or attendance?  If you do not, then OPM will likely argue as follows:  “Your agency says that you are doing a great job.  So what’s the problem?”  If you cannot answer that question, then we will go to the “Fourth” criteria — that of “incompatibility”.  And that goes to the logical next question:  Do you have a doctor who will support your case?  If you do, then you will likely be able to be lifted up from the left side of the wall, to the right side of the wall.

Arthritis in the Postal Service

And the Statute goes on with:

(3) The disabling medical condition must be expected to continue for at least 1 year from the date the application for disability retirement is filed;

Note that the regulation does NOT state that the medical condition “must have” continued for at least one year, and yet, based upon phone calls and queries made to this author/attorney, there has been some fairly prevalent and persistent confusion about this requirement.  So, a note of clarity for those contemplating preparing an effective Federal/Postal Disability Retirement application:  It is merely an expectation that the medical condition will continue for at least 12 months from the date the application for Federal Disability Retirement is filed, and NOT that the medical condition must have already lasted for 12 months, which is the important point to take away from this.  How does one comply with, and establish facts such that OPM can acceptably ascertain compliance to this section?  Most doctors, after a period of treatment — or, in the case of an independent evaluation by a qualified medical specialist, upon a thorough review of the available treatment records — can provide a prognosis based upon the nature, extent, severity and chronicity of the medical condition, as to the length of expected time of continuing disability.

(4) Accommodation of the disabling medical condition in the position held must be unreasonable; and

Another way to put it is:  The Agency must not be able to reasonably accommodate the medical condition.  Further, a legally-viable accommodation in a Federal Disability Retirement case cannot be temporary or merely resulting from a Supervisor allowing for “light duty” by informally excluding some of the essential duties of a position.  While there is nothing wrong when an Agency/Supervisor allows for temporary light duty, such a change in status — whether formally or informally — does not preclude a Federal or Postal worker from proceeding with a Federal Disability Retirement filing.

(5) The individual must not have declined an offer of reassignment to a vacant position

Generally, an offer of a reassignment must be at the same pay or grade, and within a reasonable commuting area.  Keep in mind, however, that just because an offer for a reassignment is made, if the individual is unable to medically perform such an offered “other”  position, then a declination of such an offer will not necessarily preclude moving forward with a Federal Disability Retirement application. In the end, it is very rare that a Federal Agency (and certainly, for the Postal Service, the term “never” applies in almost every case) can find a suitable reassignment which undermines or precludes moving forward on a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS.

(b) The employing agency must consider a disability applicant for reassignment to any vacant position. The agency must certify to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) either that there is no vacant position or that, although it made no offer of reassignment, it considered the individual for a vacant position. If an agency offers a reassignment and the individual declines the offer, the individual may appeal the agency’s determination that the individual is not disabled for the position in question to the Merit Systems Protection Board under 5 U.S.C. 7701.

Again — this is a rare occurrence.  Rare, primarily because of practical reasons:  An individual who has a medical condition impacting upon one’s Federal or Postal position will likely not be able to work in another position at the same pay or grade, precisely because the medical condition itself will likely impact the reassignment job in a similar way.  If a debilitating back condition prevents the Federal employee from performing a cognitive-intensive, sedentary job, reassigning that person to another administrative position is not going to solve the problem.

The above-explication of the statutory “basics” undergirding the Federal Disability Retirement process is meant to provide a rough outline of the statutory basis for eligibility purposes.  As every case in a Federal Disability Retirement application is unique, the specific facts of each case must be evaluated, analyzed and assessed based upon those particular facts, and applied to the nuances inherent both in the statute and regulations, as well as the current case-laws which apply.  Thus, we start with the “basics”; go on to the more complex expansion of case-law precedents; then, after a thorough “vetting”, decide as to whether an individual case is “viable” enough to proceed with preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS Disability Retirement Attorney

 

Photo Credit: Arthritis image by PeachMoon from Pixabay

Reconsiderations and Other Medical Matters during Your USPS Disability Retirement Process

Posted on by
1

Postal employees who give their lives at the expense of their bodies, and who must file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (with a waylay station via the H.R. Shared Service Office in Greensboro, North Carolina), may encounter a First Stage denial of the application, and wonder: Why? The job itself is so self-evidently strenuous; perhaps (the Craft Employee may query with a touch of sarcasm) the OPM “Administrative Specialist” would like to try and sort mail for a day, or walk the 9-plus mile daily route to deliver mail, or to twist, turn, drive and reach like a Rural Carrier must on a daily basis; all with a shoulder gone bad, a back which requires daily ingestion of pain killers, or working with wrist splints which fail to stabilize the necessity of restricting the dexterous use of ligaments bent in directions defying nature; but there, plain as the light of day, is a letter stating that the “medical evidence fails to show that your medical condition prevents you from performing efficient service” for the U.S. Postal Service, despite the fact that they sent you home with an admonition that there are no jobs available within the medical restrictions which your doctors have identified and imposed.

What? And so, in quick succession, the two primary questions of puzzlement, Why and What. For the Postal Worker who has done everything to extend the duration of one’s employment, imposing silence as replacement for pain until the severity of the radiating discomfort and tingling, numbness and limitation of flexion and movement, until the extent and severity could no longer be muffled, it is tantamount to an injustice plastered in disbelief.

The injured or ill Postal Worker must understand and accept the stark conceptual distinction: Pain is not the same in the human body as it is on paper. There is a vast difference, and a chasm of inseparable proportions, between the theoretical and the pragmatic. The history of one’s progressive deterioration can never be adequately conveyed or narratively delineated in an accurate, reflective manner; for, the timeline of debilitation, of the days, months and years, and sometimes decades, of slow and incremental destruction of the human body; or the subtleties of damage to the human psyche where Major Depression, Anxiety, and uncontrollable panic attacks, where once it began as a nagging feeling of tingling and sweat, but today into a paralyzing attack of chest constriction and inability to think, focus or remember; the medical condition that once was a pinprick in youth, has developed into a crisis of the body and mind, and the question when confronted in terms of filing for Federal OPM Disability Retirement benefits is, How does one persuasively convey one’s medical condition into being eligible for Federal Disability Retirement?

That is why, when a denial is issued from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, puzzlement is quickly followed by a sense of panic. For, the person who has the epistemological privilege of experiencing the progressively deteriorating pain, or loss of mental acuity and cognitive dysfunctions, is not the same person who is represented in the paper presentation of a Postal Service Disability Retirement application submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. The chasm between the experiential “I” of the Postal Worker who began a career in good health, in full control of his or her physical and cognitive faculties, and over the years sensed the incremental deterioration and loss of both, as opposed to the skeletal identity of the person described in the applicant’s Statement of Disability as delineated on SF 3112A, is the difference between the depth of human complexity and the superficial attempt at capturing a lifetime of accomplishments and the negation of those achievements within the constrained space provided on a government form.

Then follows the ultimate act of futility: attempting to decipher the verbiage as to the reasons for the denial of one’s OPM Disability Retirement application. There are OPM Representatives who provide long and laboriously detailed expositions as to the application of the legal criteria in denying a Federal Disability Retirement application; and others who give short-shrift with de minimis attention. Somehow, the lengthier ones provide a semblance and appearance of conveying greater weight and gravity; the shorter ones leave one scratching one’s head in utter disbelief and puzzlement. In either case, the initial inclination and reaction is for the U.S. Postal Worker to immediately take notes, jot down a thousand rebutting comments and stream-of-consciousness thoughts (sort of like an initial draft of James Joyce’s Ulysses), and finally come to the devastating conclusion that all such attempts are tantamount to firing a shotgun at a flock of geese a hundred yards away: the pellets may rain upon them, but with ineffective power and sparse projection.

In the end, what one must realize when a Federal Disability Retirement application has been rejected by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is that the foundational presentation of persuasion failed in the essential elements of one’s case. The “Reconsideration” phase of a Federal Disability Retirement application is like the purgatory of a complex administrative process, the “Middle Earth” of a Tolkien fantasy. No longer in the land of initial persuasion and primary argumentation; but caught at the precipice of potentially being denied again, which would result in the necessity of filing an appeal to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. One presumes that, when the initial application was filed, that you gave your “best shot” as far as medical documentation goes. What more is needed? What additional medical documentation would suffice to satisfy and effectively rebut the contesting and adversarial remarks of the OPM Denial Letter? When the body of the “discussion” section containing the underlying basis and reasoning for denying one’s USPS Disability Retirement claim consists in merely pointing out the medical evidence already submitted, then stating in bald conclusory form: “Your medical evidence fails to show that you are disabled such that you are eligible for Disability Retirement…” What is it that OPM is claiming? What further is it that they need?

Clarity of reasoning is difficult to arrive at. Templates rarely suffice to address the individual uniqueness of each Federal OPM Disability Retirement case, but templates of reasoning comprise the majority of what an OPM Denial Letter consists. It often reads like a “cut and paste” job from some other denial letter, and indeed, aside from some peripheral references to individuated medical conditions and identifying some doctors from the person’s file, that is precisely what constitutes an OPM Denial Letter.

But be not deceived, nor down in the dumps; it may be that the medical documentation was indeed sufficient; and instead of wasting one’s energy and time in attempting to decipher the content of an OPM Denial Letter, it is often useful to go back and reiterate the basics of a Federal Disability Retirement case. Three primary points, whether at the Initial Stage of an OPM Disability Retirement application, or at the Reconsideration Stage after an initial denial, must and should always be revisited: A. What are the medical conditions and the symptoms? B. How do the medical conditions prevent the Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job? And C., Could such medical conditions be accommodated such that the Postal employee could continue to perform all of the essential elements of the job?

The beginning point is often the necessary endpoint. What an OPM Denial letter often does, however, is to obfuscate, confuse, and knock off of the proverbial tracks, the necessary proof needed to meet the preponderance of the evidence test. It may not be rocket science, but it is also not a simple matter to prove. Ultimately, to meet the standard of proof in winning a Federal Disability Retirement application from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether at the Initial Stage of the process or just having received an initial Denial from OPM, going “back to the basics” is always the target to pursue, and that means making sure that one’s treating doctor is supportive of the Federal Disability Retirement. All else naturally flows and follows from there.

The U.S. Postal Service and Federal Disability Retirement: The National Reassessment Program, the Agency and the Worker

Posted on by
16

The U.S. Postal Service has, for many years, been a “good employer” for thousands of hard-working Postal employees.  By ascribing the term “good”, of course, one enters into the dangerous territory of different experiences in a wide-range of sectors across the United States, for just as there are “good” and “bad” people, there are good and bad Post Offices, Postmasters, Supervisors, Rural and City Carriers, Maintenance and Electronic Technicians, Clerks, Distribution Clerks, Mail Handlers, etc.  Individuals determine the moral and ethical designation of “good” or “bad”; individuals collectively make up an organization, which is reflective of the type, character and tenor of the individuals within that organization.

Thus, by the conceptual term “good employer”, is merely meant that it has allowed for thousands of hard-working, productive Postal employees to earn a decent wage. “Goodness” of an agency comes about because of good people, and if goodness is in any way determined or defined by the hard work of the majority of the people of any organization, then it is indisputable that the Postal Service, all things considered, is indeed a good agency.

Changes have been in the works.  And they continue to alter the landscape of the U.S. Postal Service.

For many years, when an on-the-job injury occurred, and an OWCP claim was filed, despite the onerous provisions of the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), it allowed for temporary compensation benefits, including wage-loss benefits for total or partial disability, monetary benefits for permanent loss of use of a schedule member, medical benefits, as well as vocational rehabilitation. Yes, FECA is a hassle.  Remember, however, that FECA was never created as a “Retirement System” – but rather, as a means to temporarily compensate the injured worker while attempting to provide for rehabilitation resulting in an eventual return to work.   To that end, even when the injured employee never fully recovered, the Postal Service, in cooperation with OWCP, would attempt to offer various “light duty” or “modified duty” assignments, so that the Postal employee could be retained in a productive capacity.

There is actually nothing wrong with the U.S. Postal Service offering ‘light duty’ or ‘modified assignments’ over the years.  Now, however, with the onerous sweep of the National Reassessment Program (NRP) which is effectively telling all Postal Workers who are not “fully productive” that there are no more “light duty” assignments remaining; no longer can you remain in a “modified duty” position.  You are sent home with a terse explanation that there is no work for you, and you may file for OWCP benefits.  However, only a fool would believe that OWCP benefits will last forever.

What is the choice?  What alternatives are left?  Because Federal Disability Retirement benefits will often take 6 – 8 months to apply for and get approved, it is a good idea to start the process as early as possible.  You may stay on OWCP for as long as you can, or for the length of time FECA allows you to receive such benefits, but there will be a day, sooner than later, when such benefits will be cut off – either through

“vocational rehabilitation” (Translation:  find you a job, any job, that pays at or near what your Postal job paid, and be able to argue that you are no longer entitled to OWCP benefits), referral to an “Independent Second Opinion Doctor” who may look at you (or perhaps not even look at you) and spend five minutes before declaring that you have no residual symptoms and you should be able to return to full duty (Translation:  no more OWCP benefits, but we all know you can’t go back to carrying mail or performing the heavy lifting, bending, pushing, reaching grasping, etc.).

Would you qualify for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS?  Assume the following hypothetical:  X suffers from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, or perhaps from chronic back pain, failed back syndrome, or chronic pain throughout one’s musculature; it originated from an OTJ injury, accepted by OWCP, and for a decade X worked in a modified light duty job.  The job is no longer in existence (by the way, the fact that such a job is now “no longer in existence” is precisely what attorneys who specialize in Federal Disability Retirement benefits have been arguing for years – that a ’modified light duty’ does NOT constitute an accommodation under the law, precisely because it was merely a temporary position with an ad hoc set of duties, and nothing more).  Can you qualify for Federal Disability Retirement benefits?

Hint:  Note what the Administrative Judges at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board stated in the case of Selby v. OPM, Docket #SF-844E-05-0118-I-1, decided June 9, 2006:  “The fact that he was receiving two hours of workers compensation a day also buttresses his claim that his injuries prevented him from performing many of the critical elements of his position.”  In other words, any granting of receipt of OWCP benefits (in this particular case, it was compensation for 2 hours per day, but the argument can be extended to include any amount of compensation) only reinforces and supports (“buttresses”) the argument by a Postal Worker that he or she could not perform the full panoply of the essential elements of one’s job.  Being able to work the full 8 hours in the full description of one’s craft job, is what is required.  Otherwise, it is likely that you qualify for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.

The National Reassessment Program is merely reflective of a wider economic trend; technological changes have altered the landscape of labor-intensive jobs; automation is the focal emphasis in every agency and department; budgetary considerations result in the “bottom-line” approach to personnel decisions.  Where does it all lead to, and what does it all mean for the Postal Worker?  If you believe that, after 20 years of faithful service, after having shown that you are a “good” employee, that such faithful loyalty will be returned “in kind”, while your naiveté may be commendable, your may be sorely disappointed in the manner in which the Agency will treat you.  If the NRP impacts you, you need to make some pragmatic decisions, and one of them may well be to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.

Do you have a medical condition or disability which would qualify?  Often, the question is asked whether or not Psychiatric conditions are more difficult to qualify under the criteria of Federal Disability Retirement.  The spectrum of psychiatric conditions, from Major Depression, Anxiety, panic attacks, Asperger’s Syndrome, Bipolar Disorder, ADHD, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, etc., are all medical conditions which, if they prevent you from performing one or more of the essential elements of your job, would qualify you for a Federal Disability Retirement annuity.  Psychiatric cases are no more difficult these days than “physical” disabilities.

In this day and age, it is unfortunate but true, that there has arisen a contentious relationship – between “the Agency” and “the Postal Worker”.  Both are supposed to constitute a single organic entity, unified in purpose; but where the Agency has initiated a deliberate program to “weed out” those Postal Workers – regardless of the years of faithful service – who, because of an ongoing medical condition, are considered to be less than “fully productive”, then it is time for the Postal Worker, whether the Clerk, the Postmaster, the EAS Supervisor, the Maintenance Technician, the Electronic Technician, the Rural Letter Carrier, the City Letter Carrier, or the multitude of countless other important jobs performed at the U.S. Postal Service – time to tap into a benefit which has always been there, but has often been unused, underused or ignored:  Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

To Resign or Not To Resign From the US Postal Service

Posted on by
33

I am often asked whether or not it is okay to resign from the Post Office prior to either (1) filing for disability retirement or (2) receiving a decision from the Office of Personnel Management. A decision to resign from the Agency must be weighed very carefully, for there are multiple factors which must be considered.

I will try and outline a few of the considerations to be weighed:

(1) What advantage is gained by resigning? If it is merely to avoid the hassles of dealing with the Postal Service (the USPS may insist upon updated medical documents every couple of weeks; they may call and harass you every week; you may have an unsympathetic supervisor, etc.), then I normally advise against resigning. There is no advantage to resigning, other than the quietude of being separated from service. As an attorney, I believe that is not enough of a reason.

(2) What is the disadvantage of resigning? There may be many: Any leverage to force the Postal Service to cooperate with a disability retirement application may be lost; if your doctor has not yet written a medical narrative report (and, believe me, for some doctors, that can take months), the doctor will have to be reminded that any statement of employment impact must pre-date the date of resignation; you lose the leverage of that which the Postal Service holds most dear, for no price: your position. For the position you fill, that slot which suddenly becomes vacant once you resign, is that which is most dear, most valuable for the Agency: and to resign is to give it up without having the USPS pay any cost.

Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Why Is the Postal Worker Being Removed From Service?

Posted on by
5

While a compromise position on certain issues in the U.S. Postal Service Disability Retirement for FERS & CSRS may be the best that one may hope for, obviously, clarity over question is the better course to have.  Thus, for instance, in a removal action, where a Postal employee is being removed for his or her “excessive absences,” it is best to have the proposed removal and the decision of removal to reference one or more medical conditions, or at least some acknowledgment by the Postal Service, that would explicate — implicitly or otherwise — that the underlying basis for the “excessive absences” were as a result of the medical condition.  There are cases which clearly state that where excessive absences are referenced by medical conditions, the Bruner Presumption would apply in a Federal Disability Retirement case.

Now, in those cases where the removal action merely removes a Postal employee for “excessive absences”, there are other methods which may win over an Administrative Judge to apply the Bruner Presumption.  Such “other methods” may include emails or correspondence, at or near the time of the removal action, which appears to put the Agency on notice about specific medical conditions, including attachments of doctor’s reports, medical notations, etc.  Such concurrent documentation can convince an Administrative Judge that, indeed, the question as to whether the “excessive absences” were as a result of a medical condition, and whether management was aware of such an underlying basis, is clarified by documents which provide a proper context within the reasonable time-frame of the issuance of the proposal to remove and the decision to remove.  It is always better, of course, to have clarity over a question, but sometimes the question can be clarified with additional and concurrent documentation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
FERS Disability Attorney