Tag Archives: postal workers blog nrp

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

The Postal Treadmill: Taking the option of USPS Disability Retirement

Posted on by
5

For many years, the U.S. Postal Service has allowed its workers to remain productive by fashioning limited duty, modified positions for injured employees who were unable to perform all of the essential elements of the job.  To a great extent, those prior years of apparent accommodation (“apparent”, because such modified job offers were never legally sufficient accommodations) were analogous to a treadmill:  So long as the speed of the treadmill allowed for the Postal Worker to perform at his or her pace, consistent with the medical restrictions as allowed for in a “Modified Job Offer” or a “Limited Duty Job” as crafted in cooperation between (usually) three parties – the Postal Worker, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Department of Labor, Office of Worker’s Compensation – the injured Postal Worker was able to perform his or her job well, and remain productive.

Times have changed.

With the accelerated initiation and imposition of the National Reassessment Program, the Postal Treadmill has rapidly increased to exponential speeds, to the extent that most Postal Workers who have occupied a “Modified” or “Light Duty” position are asked to get off the working treadmill completely, and go home.  While filing for OWCP benefits is an option, such payments are tenuous and temporary at best, and at worst, will be denied. While Worker’s Compensation benefits pay well, the issue for the Postal Worker sent home because the U.S. Postal Service has found that a “search of its available positions” all of a sudden has resulted in a failure to find “available work” for the injured Postal Worker, is whether or not such a Postal Worker may qualify for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.

The short answer to that question is, “Yes, in all likelihood”.

The Postal Worker needs to understand that, even during the time that he or she was working at a “Modified Job”, or a “Limited Duty”, that same Postal Worker was always qualified and eligible for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS.

How could this be?

A person who is working in a “temporary” light duty position was never technically  “reassigned” to a new permanent position.   That same Postal Worker continued to remain in the same official job-slot, as reflected by the PS Form 50.  As such, the “Modified” or “Light Duty” job was always just a fiction.  It was a “made-up” position.  The fact that under the National Reassessment Program, the U.S. Postal Service could all of a sudden do away with all such positions, only proves the point:  There never existed a “Modified” or “Light Duty” position; it was always the same position, but on a separate piece of paper, the three parties involved – the Postal Worker, the Department of Labor/Office of Worker’s Compensation, and the U.S. Postal Service – simply “made up” the fictional position.

There is legal precedent already in place which establishes that a Postal Worker who occupied a modified or light-duty position is nevertheless eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  It was addressed by the Federal Circuit Court in Bracey v. Office of Personnel Management, 236 F.3d 1356, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001) — a case which I have previously discussed on many occasions, but one which is important to go over again.  In the case of Bracey, the Federal Circuit Court outlined the applicable provisions governing disability retirement, saying that “the pertinent OPM regulation elaborates on the statutory definition by providing that an employee is eligible for disability retirement only if (1) the disabling medical condition is expected to continue for at least one year; (2) the condition results in a deficiency in performance, conduct, or attendance, or is incompatible with useful and efficient service or retention in the employee’s position; and (3) the agency is unable to accommodate the disabling condition in the employee’s position or in an existing vacant position.”

It is this last point (Number 3) which is important to ponder and consider.  For, if the Agency is unable to accommodate the Postal Worker, and being placed in a “Modified” or “Light Duty” position does not constitute an “accommodation” (because there never was such a position to begin with), then the Postal Worker would be eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS (assuming that all other criteria of eligibility are met).

Let us consider this further.  In Bracey, the Court clearly stated that an employee must be reassigned to a “vacant” position, and not one which was merely “made up”, in order for such reassignment to be an “accommodation”.  The Court went on to say:

“We Agree with Mr. Bracey that OPM’s argument fails, because the term “vacant position” in section 8337 refers to an officially established position that is graded and classified, not to an informal assignment of work that an agency gives to an employee who cannot perform the duties of his official position.  A ‘position’ in the federal employment system is required to be classified and graded in accordance with the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements associated with it.”  Id. at p. 1359
Then, the Court went on to state that the term “vacant position” means “something that is definite and already in existence rather than an unclassified set of duties devised to meet the needs of a particular employee who cannot perform the duties of his official position.”  Id. at 1360.

This is precisely what has occurred to the Postal Worker on the treadmill all of these many years – of NOT being reassigned to a new permanent position, but merely working in a temporary, light duty position. Furthermore, for the Postal Worker, the case of Ancheta v. Office of Personnel Management, 95 M.S.P.R. 343,  10, 12-14 (2003) clarifies it even more, where the Board held that a modified job in the Postal Service that does not “comprise the core functions of an existing position” is not a “position” or a “vacant position” for purposes of determining eligibility for disability retirement. The Board noted that a “modified” job in the Postal Service may include “‘subfunctions’ culled from various positions that are tailored to the employee’s specific medical restrictions,” and thus may not constitute “an identifiable position when the employee for whom the assignment was created is not assigned to those duties.” Id.,  14. The Board thus suggested that a “modified” job in the Postal Service generally would not constitute a “position” or a “vacant position.” Id.

Sound familiar?  Sound like the Postal Worker who has been sent home under the National Reassessment Program?  For the Postal Worker who has been occupying a Modified or Light Duty position all of these many years, you may have thought that you were in an “official” position.  If that were the case, then that same Postal Worker would not be able to be sent home today.  The reality is that no such position ever existed.  The Postal Worker was never in an “official” position, other than the position which he or she always occupied:  that position which required you to perform all of the essential elements of a Clerk, a Letter Carrier, a Rural Carrier, a Mail Processing Clerk, a Distribution Clerk, a Mail Handler, an Electronic Technician, a Maintenance worker, a Sales, Service & Distribution Clerk, etc.

But since the Postal Worker on the daily treadmill was never able to perform all of the essential elements of the “official position”, it logically follows that the Postal Worker was always eligible – even throughout the entire time of working in a “Modified” or “Light Duty” position – to file for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS.  Thus, for the Postal Worker who has been sent home, or is in danger of being sent home, because of the National Reassessment Program, a viable option to consider is to file for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS.  You were always eligible; you just didn’t know it.

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: