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.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire