Tag Archives: mail handlers with back problems

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

National Reassessment Program

Posted on by
17

       Postal Workers call me daily inquiring about the viability of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS. Often, it is in response to the U.S. Postal Service’s initiation of actions resulting from the NRP. The “National Reassessment Program” (which is neither a “program” designed with any rational basis, nor a “reassessment” of anything but an attempt to shed all workers from the rolls of the U.S. Postal Service who are not fully productive and capable; but, alas, at least the term “National” does seem true) is designed to, in a heartlessly methodical manner, do the following:

A. Inform the targeted Postal Worker of the unavailability of work.

B. Force the Postal Worker to begin receiving benefits from FECA (OWCP) .

C. Begin a process of “vocational rehabilitation” – a euphemism for trying to locate a private sector job – any job – that you might qualify for.

D. Get you off of OWCP rolls once you are determined to be “suited” to the private sector job.

      The above applies on the assumption that you have a FECA (OWCP) accepted claim. If you do not have an OWCP-accepted claim, then only “A” above applies to you, and you will essentially be sent home without the “benefit” of “B – D”.

       All sectors – Federal and State Government, and private sector jobs – “downsize” during economically challenging times. In this economy, where job growth is stagnant and budgets are being squeezed more and more each fiscal year, the U.S. Postal Service is attempting to shed its payrolls of all workers who are not “fully productive”. With the latest numbers showing that the first quarter of 2010 left the U.S. Postal Service with a revenue decline of 3.9% resulting in a net loss of $297 million, the onerous steps as envisioned under the National Reassessment Program will only accelerate.

      The NRP is a “controlling” mechanism. The methodology of the program is to make the Postal Worker financially dependent upon OWCP payments and once dependent, to dictate the terms of the “vocational rehabilitation” such that you have no choice in the matter. In comparison to Federal Disability Retirement benefits, it certainly pays more (with a dependent, 75% tax free; without a dependent, 66 2/3% tax free, as opposed to Federal Disability Retirement benefits which pays 60% of the average of one’s highest three consecutive years the first year, then 40% every year thereafter under FERS, all of which is taxable). But the freedom which one gives up by submitting to the NRP Program is precisely what is intolerable.

       Many Postal Workers turn to Federal Disability Retirement benefits in lieu of FECA – or, at the very least, file for and obtain an approval for Federal Disability Retirement benefits as a “back-up” system to FECA. In comparison to the “benefits” under FECA (OWCP), Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS (and, similarly, under CSRS, although the percentage of benefits under CSRS remains static) provides the following:

A. It is a retirement system – so that one is actually separated from Federal Service, and further, except for the potential of a Medical Questionnaire every two years (if you are randomly selected), the disability annuitant is not under constant scrutiny

B. An individual Federal Disability Retirement annuitant is allowed to become employed in the private sector and make up to 80% of what one’s former Federal or Postal position currently pays, in addition to the disability annuity

C. An individual under Federal Disability Retirement is not dependent upon the often arbitrary and capricious decision-making process of OWCP. It allows one to decide and determine the future course of one’s life.

       Ultimately, the National Reassessment Program will impact you, the injured Postal Worker, whether today, next week, or a year from now. If self-determination is an important element of your life, then it is wise to take steps today, and to affirmatively make choices soon, before you attempt to go to work one day and are sent home with a letter stating, “There is no work available for you”. Or, you may not even receive the courtesy of a letter.

       The Postal Worker is probably unaware of one additional fact: all these years while the Postal Worker has been in a “Modified” light-duty position, while the U.S. Postal Service “accommodated” the worker by allowing for temporary positions at less than full duty requirements – all these years, that Postal Worker was eligible and entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS. You may simply have not known this, but being allowed to work in a “light duty” status, or in a “Modified Position”, was never a legally-sufficient accommodation under the law. (See Bracey v. Office of Personnel Management, 236 F.3d 1356 , Fed. Cir. 2001, as well as my related articles on the subject¹). During these years, the system worked in a crippled way — injured workers were allowed to continue to work, and the economy allowed the U.S. Postal Service to trudge along – albeit at a yearly loss.

       Today, however, choices must be made. The National Reassessment Program is here in your neighborhood, and it is no longer allowing for the old system to continue unabated. If you are contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, now is the right time. To wait is to delay the inevitable; to ignore the inevitable is to allow the circumstances to dictate your future.

——————————


 

¹ The Bracey Decision and other resources published by attorney Robert R. McGill:

a) Brief legal analysis of non-statutory laws: The Bracey Decision.

b) Blogs that mention Bracey v. Office of Personnel Management:

c) Some articles that also mention Bracey v. Office of Personnel Management:

d) Miscellaneous posts:


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