Tag Archives: lack of work for usps workers with medical restrictions

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

Adding to the 10 Dos and Don’ts in filing for Postal Disability Retirement benefits with OPM

Posted on by
Reply

It is always a good idea to review statements made, declarations asserted and advice given in spheres of influence, legal or not, just to ascertain the validity of what was stated in the past.  Then, if “updates” are necessary, or one can “add to” the value of past observations, such modifications may be fruitful and, more importantly, expand the knowledge previously gained.  The 10 dos and don’ts previously annotated in a prior article included:  Do not assume; Do not wait; Do respond affirmatively; Do ask outright of the doctor; Don’t count on bilateral loyally from the U.S. Postal Service; Do not believe everything the Postal Service tells you; Do provide a ‘totality of evidence’ approach in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application; Do emphasize the credentials of your doctor; Do not act as your own lawyer; Do present your case in a streamlined, professional manner.  While those 10 dos and don’ts are still relevant and apply today, it is always wise to revisit and refresh the underlying rationale in following such dictates of guidance, and to add some more in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Postal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Thus, some further Dos and Don’ts:

  1. Do become familiar with the basic criteria of Postal Disability Retirement. Your parents may or may not have emphasized the importance of doing your homework.  Such emphasis, now that you are older and wiser, should be applied when preparing one’s Postal Disability Retirement application for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  The basic eligibility criteria, of course, can be easily gleaned from OPM’s website:  for FERS employees, a minimum of 18 months of Federal Service and the existence of a medical condition that prevents the Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Postal position.  As with all endeavors and administrative engagements, however, there is the initial, somewhat-superficial rules that apply; then, there are more “secondary” and detailed issues to identify and ascertain in gaining further knowledge of the process —  questions about accommodations and reassignment; of resignation as opposed to separation and termination; and whether you can work during the process, to what extent and for how long; and many further questions besides.  Basic familiarity is a given; detailed analysis is a must; complete understanding is recommended in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Postal Disability Retirement application.
  2. Do use the available law to your advantage.  The law can be used both as a sword as well as a shield.  If the former, it is utilized to advance your cause; if the latter, as a defensive mechanism to counter the aggressive parry of one’s opponent.  Preemptively use the law in guiding the U.S. Office of Personnel Management into approvbility Retirement application.  Anticipate the arguments that may arise; if the Postal Service is about to separate you from Federal Service for excessive use of SL or because you have been on extended LWOP, negotiate the terms of the termination in order to have the right to assert the Bruner Presumption.
  3. Do not necessarily believe what the Postal Service tells you.  In the previous formulation of the 10 Dos and Don’ts, the admonition was, “Do not believe everything the Postal Service tells you”.  Here, the slight twist is:  Do not necessarily believe what your agency tells you.  It may well be that the U.S. Postal Service is honest and forthright; that your Human Resource Office will provide you with the correct information, and even that they will “work” with you during this difficult time in your life.  However — and this is the caveat and the care that needs to be taken when relying upon an Agency’s direction and advice — when the Postal Facility begins to suspect that you will no longer remain as part of the “team” in pursuance of the Postal Service’s “mission”, your status as an outcast will be reflected in the selective information given and revealed.  As human nature is inherently one of a herd-mentality, it is best to take the approach of a well-known figure when considering information from a source that may no longer be looking out for your best interests:  trust, but verify.
  4. Do not wait until the last moment.  Again, this is a slight variation from the previous recommendation, which stated simply:  “Do not wait.”  Procrastination makes for unnecessary emergencies, and while medical conditions tend to take up all of the focus and energies needed just to get through a given day, the most effectively formulated Postal Disability Retirement applications are the ones that have been prepared with foresight, care and deliberative intent.  However, as life often interrupts the best-laid plans, so medical conditions have the tendency and effect of delaying the completion of multiple other facets of daily living activities, and so the following admonition is applied:  If you do not file on time, you will be precluded from making any arguments at all; if, on the other hand, you at least file before the deadline, you can always supplement later.
  5. Do be careful in completing the Applicant’s Statement of Disability.  Standard Form 3112A is the core and essence of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  The questions on SF 3112A appear to be simple enough, but the question that most people fail to ask and have answered is:  Are there legal consequences if certain questions fail to be answered in a particular manner?  The simple answer to such a query is:  Yes.  Many people believe that if you just list the major diagnosed medical conditions, gather up a few medical records that show that you have been medically identified to suffer from such conditions, package it all together and ship them over to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, that somehow the bureaucratic process will recognize the seriousness of it all and grant you your Postal Disability Retirement benefits.  Good luck with that approach.
  6. Do be the gatekeeper of the information conveyed.  It is never a good idea to rely upon the good intentions of others, if only because one’s definition of “good” and that which constitutes “good intentions” can never be presumed.  As the burden of producing evidence sufficient to meet the legal criteria of “preponderance of the evidence” is placed upon the Postal Disability Retirement applicant, so the responsibility of that which is submitted can be determined by the Applicant him/herself, or his/her attorney.  Always review everything before it reaches its final “destination point” — the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
  7. Do prepare each stage of the process as if it will require the next.  While it is true that each Stage of the Administrative Process called “Federal Disability Retirement” is unique, important and self-sufficient in and of themselves — and while we all hope that there will be no need to go to the “next” stage — nevertheless, a little bit of preemptive foresight is always a good idea.  The First Two Stages of the bureaucratic process (i.e., the Initial Stage of the application and the “Reconsideration” Stage of the process are both before the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, while the “Third Stage” of the process is an administrative appeal before a Judge at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board) may not require preemptively extensive legal argumentation, inasmuch as OPM’s “medical specialists” are not lawyers and care little about the governing law.  Nevertheless, making sound legal arguments is often a necessary pre-condition in preparing for the Third Stage of the Administrative process — before an Administrative Judge at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board — and it is a good idea to “prepare the groundwork” for that possible eventuality by arguing the major legal precedents during the first two stages of the process in anticipation of the possibility for appearing before the U.S.Merit Systems Protection Board.
  8. Do not unduly focus upon the details of a denial. Each Stage of the Postal Disability Retirement process is independent of the other, to a great extent.  The added “qualifier” — “to a great extent” — is meant to apprise all Postal Disability Retirement applicants, potential or otherwise, as to the practical impact of receiving a denial at the First, Initial Stage of the Process, or at the Second, Reconsideration Stage of the process.  Each stage is viewed de novo — as new, starting over again, etc.  Thus, to try and rebut point-by-point the rationale or reasoning of the First Stage OPM’s “Administrative Specialist” is somewhat of a waste of time, as the person who will be reviewing any newly-submitted evidence at the Second, Reconsideration Stage will not be relying upon the reasons for the denial propounded at the First Stage.  This is not to say that the Applicant shouldn’t consider the general reasons and specific rationales given as to “why” one’s Federal Disability Retirement application was denied at the First Stage — only that a “point-by-point” refutation is often an act of futility.  The same general rule applies to a Second, Reconsideration Denial — for, at that point, it becomes a “game-changer” in that the de novo process will be taken up in a completely different forum:  Before an Administrative Judge at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
  9. Do calculate time-frames on the “conservative” side.  Yes, yes, it does “say so” — that you have thirty (30) days from the date of the letter in which to respond to an Initial Denial, and 30 days from the date of a Reconsideration Denial to file an appeal with the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board — or from the date you received the denial.  However, it is always a good idea to take the date of the letter and respond in a timely fashion using that date, instead of the more “flexible” date of when you received the Letter of Denial.  Perhaps it will seem “unfair” that there was such a lengthy delay between the date of the letter and the date you received the letter; however, as life is often full of unfair events, so this one should be viewed with a similarly dispassionate perspective.  As a general rule, that which can be ascertained as an indisputable fact (like the stated date on the denial letter) has the greater basis of reliance than one which can be later disputed (like the date one “received” the denial letter).
  10. Do not turn your responses into a personal vendetta.   Be professional about it.  It is sometimes difficult to provide a Reader’s Digest version of the history of the medical condition and be your own harshest editor, but understand that the central focus of the reviewing “specialist” at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management who will make the decision upon your Postal Disability Retirement application does not have the time, inclination or desire to sift through tangential and irrelevant meanderings in your Applicant’s Statement of Disability as reflected on SF 3112A.  Going on a tirade about how the Postal Service failed to accommodate you is not the issue; what attempted accommodations were provided and how they failed, might be — but only if stated in an objective, dispassionate manner.

Lists which purport to identify X-number of this or that rarely comprise an exhaustive compendium of the things that need to be done, and this list by no means accounts for all of the intricacies involved in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted ultimately to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Indeed, here’s another “Commandment” that should be followed:  Do not try to be your own lawyer.  Law is a peculiar animal; its technical nature and complexities often challenge the best of us, but more importantly, legal principles tend to have tentacles that reach beyond a simple understanding gleaned from a synopsis discovered on the Internet, whose source has not been ascertained and where validity is questionable.

Postal Disability Retirement is a specialized area of law that cannot easily be condensed into an abbreviated list of 10 dos and don’ts, but these Ten Principles listed herein, in addition to the previous ones discussed in a prior article, may provide some useful “tips” in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Postal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  The operative concept here, of course, is encapsulated by the word “effective” — for, why else would you expend your time, effort and resources in applying for a benefit which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, unless it has become a necessary contingency leaving little choice in the matter?  Effectiveness is gained not by chance or unplanned circumstances, but by taking a deliberative approach in preparing, formulating and filing based upon knowledge and gained wisdom, and the principles underlying any efficacy of endeavors must always begin by knowledge gleaned from past experiences, or from a lawyer who is experienced in such matters.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Issues That Matter for the Postal Employee

Posted on by
3

Are there unique aspects in a Federal Disability Retirement application, separate and distinct from non-Postal, Federal employees? Are there essential features, different approaches, and distinguishable paradigms to follow? Are the rules different, applied differently, approached separately, devised insufferably, when determined to involve Postal employees? Are there unique characteristics, either through the preparation delineated from the perspective of the Postal Federal Disability retirement applicant, or from the viewpoint of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which should be recognized before making that leap into the wide and deep chasm of submitting a Federal Disability Retirement application to OPM?

Certainly, many of the appellate decisions handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, involve U.S. Postal employees. But is the fact that a case involving a U.S. Postal employee enough to distinguish it from other Federal, non-Postal cases? Admittedly, decisions handed down by the Federal Courts or the MSPB do not openly acknowledge any conceptual distinction between Postal employees filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, from non-Postal, Federal employees in multiple other agencies; and all presume (correctly and accurately) that both Postal and non-Postal Federal employees fall into the same retirement systems (FERS, CSRS or CSRS-Offset), and as such, the identical legal criteria are applied, including:

  • Minimum of 18 months of Federal/Postal accrued service in order to file for Federal Disability Retirement (for CSRS, 5 years, which presumably already has been met)
  • Not separated for more than 1 year
  • Having a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job
  • Both the Federal and Postal employee cannot be reassigned to a position at the same pay or grade, and further, cannot be accommodated such that the accommodation allows the Federal or Postal employee to perform all of the essential elements of the job.

Put more succinctly, while overt treatment of both Federal and Postal employees may appear identical, are there “issues” which differentiate between the two? Certainly, and again, accurately, the cases which impact Federal employees parallel Postal employees in their direct and residual effects, and vice versa. As all Federal employees and U.S. Postal employees fall under the same retirement systems, as well as concurrently identical disability retirement benefits, the question therefore must involve any indirect consequences for the U.S. Postal worker, as opposed to the overt residuals that portend both for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers.

Internal mechanisms unique to the Postal employee can have an impact upon how the U.S. Office of Personnel Management views, analyzes and evaluates a Federal Disability Retirement application submitted by a U.S. Postal worker. Thus, for example, the National Reassessment Process (or as some designate the acronym as representing the term, “Program”) impacted all Postal employees throughout the nation, across all crafts, in reviewing all injured Postal employees serving in a limited duty capacity or other “temporary” light duty assignment, in an effort to ultimately “squeeze” the employee, shed the Postal organization of any and all Postal workers in less than “fully productive” capacity, and return them to the OWCP rolls. But temporary “light duty” assignments, or even “limited duty” assignments (whatever the conceptual differences are between the two), were deemed not to prevent a Federal or Postal employee from being eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management fought hard against such a ruling, and indeed, in the beginning (at the MSPB level), prevailed in this viewpoint.

Bracey v. Office of Personnel Management, 236 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and further extended in Marino v. Office of Personnel Management, 243 F. 3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001), is a landmark case in clarifying what constitutes an “accommodation” as opposed to a temporary measure of convenience – both for the Federal and Postal employee, as well as for the agency and the U.S. Postal Service. Until the nationwide interference by the NRP in “meddling” with a system that was working, the Postal Service was attempting to maintain the delicate balance between the Postal Service’s inherent need to remain productive and efficient on the one hand, and the rights of the Postal worker who had incurred a medical disability (the majority of which were OWCP-accepted, on-the-job injuries) but retained a desire to continue working. In recognizing the two sides of “needs” and “wants”, the Postal Service created temporary, limited and light-duty assignments. When the NRP began sending Postal workers home with summary dismissals accompanied by curt declarations somewhat in the manner of, “Based upon a review of your medical conditions and the availability of work in your craft, we have determined that the U.S. Postal Service is unable to find suitable work for you” – the remaining option for stranded Postal Workers was to file for Federal Disability Retirement.

The legal definition of an accommodation, for purposes of Federal Disability Retirement, is anything that an agency can do for the Federal or Postal employee which enables “him to perform the critical or essential duties of his official position.” (See, e.g., Selby v. OPM, 2006 MSPB 161, decided June 9, 2006). Thus, placing a Federal employee in a temporary position, or a “light duty” job, does not constitute an accommodation under the law, precisely because such an action on the part of the Agency is to merely sidestep or otherwise avoid the primary concern: such a Federal or Postal employee is still unable to perform all of the essential elements of the official position. For a long time, the issue of whether or not “light duty” constituted an accommodation was essentially an irrelevant one. Prior to the NRP, the Postal Service “accommodated” (using the term very loosely) its injured workers, by allowing for limited or light duty. With the advent of the NRP, the game-changing nature of their meddling became clear: Rid and shed, and let OPM determine whether or not the two-edged sword was sharp on both sides: the Postal Service has no work, anymore, but the Postal worker has been working for many years after incurring a medical condition. Would such a Postal worker still qualify for Federal Disability Retirement benefits?

Vestiges of outmoded thought processes still retain their residual effects well beyond the life-cycle of viability. It is said that hair follicles and toenails continue to grow beyond the certainty of death; perhaps it is merely a myth, or a misperception as dehydration occurs and retraction of surrounding skin leaves the impression of growth and extension. OPM has fought their fight, and lost. Postal workers are still being sent home with summary dismissals based upon “unavailability of work,” and left to fend for themselves while receiving zero-balance paystubs for years, sometimes decades. At some point, the Postal Worker realizes that OWCP is not a retirement system, and being sent to a “second-opinion” evaluation may mean the end of temporary-total Worker’s comp payments. Then what? Filing for Federal Disability Retirement is the option to pursue, but perhaps it has been years since a treating doctor has certified that a medical condition even exists. As there is a wide chasm between perception and reality, so we return to the original question: Are there overt “issues” which differentiate between treatment of Federal employees as opposed to Postal workers? It may well be that the issues remain fairly identical, but the circumstances which create the difficulties make for a distinguishing difference.

But then, that has always been the case with Postal employees – that “quasi-Federal worker” who works for the only Constitutionally-recognized agency, but somehow is relegated as the second-class citizen in the complex universe of Federal systems, and left to consider the administrative procedures governing Federal Disability Retirement benefits for both Postal and Federal non-Postal employees. In the end, it is the very uniqueness of how the non-Postal Federal sector views the Postal worker, which mandates a cautious approach to be taken when the Postal employee considers preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Postal Employee Medical Retirement Lawyer

 

Federal Disability Retirement for U.S. Postal Service Employees – The Needed Proof

Posted on by
1

Postal Service employees often feel that they are second-class citizens – both in terms of their status and stature as a “Federal employee” who is under either the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or (for those lucky ones who are quickly diminishing in numbers but who were able to enter the Federal workforce prior to the 1986 transition) under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS); and in terms of pay scales and discussions in Congress related to bloated budgets, inability to become profitable, etc.

For Postal employees who are considering filing for Postal Medical Retirement under FERS or CSRS, the question is often queried as to whether the U.S. Office of Personnel Management treats Postal employees differently than non-Postal, Federal employees.   Whether there is any empirical evidence of discriminatory intent on the part of OPM against Postal employees who file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, is essentially a non-starter.  For, in the end, each case must be decided on the unique quality and extent of the medical documentation compiled.   Further, one cannot compare and contrast differentiated groups lumped by “Postal” as opposed to “non-Postal”, precisely because the uniqueness of each Federal Disability Retirement case is characterized by the medical condition itself; the type of job and positional duties undertaken by individual X who suffers from the medical condition; and the extent, severity and chronicity of the medical conditions in relation to the duties.

With literally hundreds of Federal agencies, and thousands and tens of thousands of differing types of jobs, one cannot aggregate a generic “Postal Worker” and compare it to a compounded composite of “other Federal workers”.  Thus, it is a wrong question to ask.  Instead, the proper question to ask would be:  Given a Postal Worker who is in craft-X, who suffers from medical condition-Y, is there a greater incidence of denials from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management of Postal Workers who file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, and if there is a greater proportional aggregate of denials as compared to the total number of denials, is there a valid reason for such disproportionate treatment?

In other words, it would be – on its face – incomparably unfair to compare an IT Specialist with the Department of the Navy, who suffers from severe Major Depression and anxiety, to a City Letter Carrier who suffers from status-post cervical discectomy and fusion, precisely because of the type of medical condition involved, and the positional requirements of both.  Further, are there inherent factors within the U.S. Postal Service which can account for any disparate treatment (if we proceed on the assumption that there even exists such differentiation of reviewing and deciding Federal Disability Retirement applications filed by Postal Workers, as opposed to non-Postal, Federal employees)?   The answer is, Yes.

The Postal Service has for years been identified with the notoriety of refusing to accommodate their workers.  Whether in association with OWCP and the Department of Labor, where workers are sent to “second opinion” doctors and “referee” medical facilities in an effort to get people off of the rolls of OWCP and back to full duty; or in conjunction with the National Reassessment Program where an across-the-board infrastructural policy was implemented stating that no accommodations were available for those craft employees who could no longer perform all of the essential functions of one’s job, and that no medical restrictions or limitations would be henceforth honored – a maneuver meant to get rid of all Postal employees who were not fully functional in their jobs – the approach of the U.S. Postal Service in attempting to regain a competitive edge was to try and get rid of anyone and everyone who suffered from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevented the employee from performing all of the essential elements of one’s job.  One might think, upon first considering that approach, that such a maneuver by the U.S. Postal Service would increase the chances for getting a Federal Disability Retirement application approved – for, by conceding that the injured craft employee cannot perform any jobs at the U.S. Postal Service, the assumption would be that such a concession would be evidence for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, as well as the Federal Disability Retirement applicant, that one is qualified because of the self-admission by the Postal Service, for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

The problem is twofold:  First, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is a separate agency from the U.S. Postal Service, and applies a legal criteria which gives scant attention to what the Postal Service thinks, does, or acts upon; and Second, evidence of what the U.S. Postal Service decides – while of somewhat dubious impact and persuasive authority – is ultimately not what makes a Postal Disability Retirement applicant eligible for Postal Disability Retirement benefits.

Indeed, look, for example, beginning with some older precedential cases such as Wilkey-Marzin v. OPM, 82 M.S.P.R. 200 (1999) – where  the Merit Systems Protection Board found that in order to determine a disability retirement in favor of an appellant,  there must be a showing beyond uncorroborated subjective evidence, and provide a “reasoned explanation” of the origins of the disabilities, and how it is disabling with respect to one’s specific duties.  In providing some guiding principles, the Board noted that the Judge should consider the following evidence: (1) objective clinical findings; (2) diagnoses and medical opinions; (3) subjective evidence of pain and disability; (4) evidence relating to the effect of the applicant’s condition on his ability to perform in the grade or class of position last occupied (see also Dunn v. Office of Personnel Management, 60 M.S.P.R. 426, 432 (1994) ).  Note that nowhere in the four (4) guiding principles is there an indication that what the agency does or doesn’t do, should be of primary consideration.  This is not to say that the issue of accommodations will not be relevant; and, certainly, one can argue that an NRP-based decision of refusing any work, or the dreaded “DRAC” (the so-called District Reasonable Accommodation Committee) determination of “no work available”, cannot be effectively used; but the primary focus in a Federal Disability Retirement case, from the viewpoint of the U.S. Postal Worker, should be to prove one’s case based upon the medical documentation, and not rely upon anything which the Postal Services does or doesn’t do.

In the end, if there has been an increase in the number of Federal or Postal Service Disability Retirement applications, in proportional numbers as compared between “Postal Workers” and any other single Federal Agency of the U.S. Government, it may be because of such unreasonable and uncompromising positions taken under the NRP, the DRAC decisions or in conjunction with OWCP claims.  For, when a determination is made that an agency (in this case, the U.S. Postal Service) will refuse to in good faith attempt to accommodate injured employees, such an intransigent policy will quite obviously increase the numbers of applications to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  But reliance upon what the agency does, without solid medical evidence to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Postal Worker is eligible and entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits, is to run a fool’s errand.  Postal Service employees have had to face multiple obstacles over the years, both in economic downsizing and frozen pay structures; and the decision to shed its workers from within because of medical conditions is merely an indication of the heart and soul of the Postal Service – not necessarily any evidence which would qualify the Postal Worker for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  For that, one must affirmatively go out and compile one’s case, and use such evidence of the NRP as merely a secondary, peripheral evidence.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement benefits for Postal Employees: The OWCP Option versus OPM

Posted on by
14

The National Reassessment Program’s (NRP) primary option for Postal employees who are not “fully productive” (interpretation:  anyone who cannot perform the full panoply of all of the essential elements of one’s job) is for the Postal employee to file for OWCP benefits.  A letter from the NRP will allegedly state that they have searched for all available work and have concluded that the Postal Service is unable to accommodate the Postal employee based upon the medical conditions identified.  The option:  file for benefits from the Department of Labor, Officer of Workers’ Compensation Programs.

Complacency allows for a period of peacefulness and peace of mind.  The operative concept (and critical juncture of concern) is that such peace of mind exists “for a period” of time.  OWCP compensation – designed as a mechanism to allow for a Postal employee to recuperate from an injury or a medical condition incurred while “on the job” or during the course of performing his or her occupational duties – is primarily meant for a temporary period of time.  Thus, TTD (temporary total disability) payments are made to Postal employees during the time of medical treatment and temporary disability, with the goal being that the Postal employee will return to work.  Further, compensation for the permanent disability suffered (identified as a “scheduled award”) is determined once a Postal employee has reached “Maximum Medical Improvement”, and when a percentage disability rating can be ascribed to an individual.  The paradigm of OWCP is therefore based upon the projected conceptual framework that it is temporary, compensatory for a set period of time, in order to allow for the eventual return of a Postal worker to his or her craft duties.

The reality of the situation, of course, is that many Postal workers in every craft imaginable – Letter Carriers (Rural or City), Mail Handlers, Mail Processing Clerks, Maintenance Workers, Sales, Service & Distribution Clerks, etc. – can be placed (and have been placed) on OWCP rolls and often “forgotten” for years, and sometimes decades (note the plural).  Such long-term payments, generous by some standards (75% of the gross salary for those with dependents; 66 2/3% for those without), can lead to a sense of complacency and comfort.

The problem with complacency and comfort, however, is that a Postal Worker can remain on the rolls of OWCP, receive the “temporary total disability” payments for years and years, and suddenly be informed that he or she is no longer disabled, has recovered, and therefore is no longer entitled to OWCP compensation. Perhaps the Postal Worker is directed to undergo an “Independent Medical Examination” – identified, compensated by, and directed to, by the Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs – to determine the feasibility of going back to work, and to establish the extent of the disability (if any).  Suddenly, the Postal worker who has enjoyed the complacency of being on the OWCP rolls for these many years sees a sudden termination of benefits.  Yes, there are appeal procedures.  Yes, there are recourses and the right to have a “referee doctor” make a further determination.  But after months of such appeals (during which time the former Postal Worker has received no compensation), while reinstatement of TTD benefits may become a reality, one often realizes that OWCP is not a permanent solution – precisely because it was never designed or meant to be such.

The further option that every Postal Worker must consider, of course, is to prepare, formulate, and file for Post Office Disability Retirement benefits under either FERS or CSRS, from the Office of Personnel Management.  This can be done concurrently with receiving and being on the rolls of OWCP – by filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, then opting to stay on OWCP and placing the approved Federal Disability Retirement annuity into an “inactive” status – as a back-up system in the event of termination of OWCP benefits.

The problem of complacency in receiving OWCP benefits is that there are too many Postal Workers who are unaware of the distinction between OWCP and OPM Disability Retirement.  The mere fact that OPM Disability Retirement pays less than OWCP benefits is not a reason not to file – if not to replace OWCP benefits, then to at least obtain them as a back-up to OWCP.  Failing to file for the benefits in a timely manner results in foregoing – forever -the right to file for such benefits.  At some point, Postal Workers on the rolls of OWCP become “separated from Federal Service” – meaning thereby that the Postal Service takes the Postal Worker off from the rolls, stops sending the “0-balance” paystubs, and issues a PS Form 50 of generating an administrative personnel action separating the Postal employee from the U.S. Postal Service and the Federal Service.  At that point of separation, the Postal Worker has 1-year to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under either FERS or CSRS, from the Office of Personnel Management.  Failure to file within that 1-year timeframe results in abdicating a right to ever file.  Then, many years later, when that letter arrives from the Department of Labor directing the Postal Worker to undergo an “Independent Medical Examination” by a doctor who seemingly is a Fellow and Member of every qualifying medical association, and is compensated by OWCP for his time and energy – the Postal Worker’s concerns about possible termination of benefits will not only become a reality, but a potential financial crisis.

Further, if a Postal Worker wants to work at another job, one who is on OWCP is unable to do so.  On the other hand, those who receive a Federal Disability Retirement annuity from the Office of Personnel Management are, under the law, allowed to go out and make up to 80% of what one’s former Postal job currently pays – on top of the Federal Disability Retirement annuity one receives.  Thus, while OWCP payments often engender complacency, there is a built-in incentive to the Postal Worker to prepare, formulate, and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management – and then to start a second career, while having the time on disability retirement count towards the total number of years of Federal Service, so that when the disability annuity is recalculated at age 62 and converted to regular retirement, the time on disability retirement is counted.

These are all factors which must be thoughtfully considered.  Whatever the decision made, a Postal employee who fails to understand the distinctions between OWCP and OPM Disability Retirement may rue the day sometime in the future – far or near, one never knows based upon the capricious whim of the Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs – when that termination letter arrives in the mailbox.  All options should be considered, and preparing, formulating and filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits is an option which should not only be “considered”, but concretely filed for.

 

The Postal Worker Today: Choices, FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement, and Protecting one’s Future

Posted on by
9

     Hypothetical:  A U.S. Postal Worker has been working for the past 7 years in a modified position.  Seven years ago, he injured himself on the job; he filed for OWCP benefits, had surgery, and returned some months later in a position within the same Craft, but modified to fit his medical restrictions and limitations.  By all accounts, he has been a productive worker.   Without warning, one day the Postal Worker is called into the office, interviewed, reassured, then escorted from the facility and informed that there is no longer any work for him to do, and that, by the way, “You can file for Worker’s Comp.” 

     Can such a hypothetical occur?

     The reality is that, under the National Reassessment Program (NRP), such a hypothetical is not a fictional instance of someone’s imaginative fantasy; rather, it is a reality which is occurring today. 

     In the world of the U.S. Postal Service and the injured worker who has one or more medical conditions such that he or she has restrictions or limitations which prevent one from performing the full panoply of the duties as outlined in the Position Description, there is no such thing as “bilateral loyalty”.  Bilateral loyalty goes like this:  You give your life to the organization, and the organization will be loyal to you.  The reality is the opposite:  You give your life to the organization, and if you can’t do the full duties of your bid job, you will no longer have a job with us.  The latter is termed, “unilateral loyalty” (i.e., kill yourself for our sake, and we’ll get rid of you if we find that you cannot perform the full duties of your position).

     Whether you are a City Letter Carrier, a Rural Carrier, a Mail Handler, Mail Processing Clerk, Distribution Clerk, Sales & Service Associate, Supervisor of a large, small, or mid-sized facility, or even a Postmaster – if you cannot perform the full duties of your position, your are in danger of being “downsized” (i.e., a euphemism for being terminated, or otherwise denied work).

     Are there solutions to the hypothetical-turned-reality in the world of layoffs, and in light of the National Reassessment Program?  There are multiple problems which continue to arise in the scenario as described above:  OWCP is not a retirement system, and their rolls are being scrutinized with greater regularity, and the eligibility standards appear to be tightening ever more.  Can one file for unemployment benefits even though the Postal Worker is still officially on “the rolls” of the U.S. Postal Service?  Will the Postal Service separate you from service, or will they wait for a year, keeping you on LWOP?  And how about Health Insurance benefits – will the Postal Service continue to maintain the premiums so that you will not lose your Health Insurance benefits?

     In the end, each Postal Worker – in whatever Craft or position one is in – must make decisions which are financially beneficial to the self-interest of the individual.  The term “self-interest” is not meant to be used as a pejorative or negative term – for, that is precisely how the U.S. Postal Service views the entire matter from their perspective – from the organizational self-interest.

     Thus, whether an individual Postal Worker, in any given Craft, suffers from a medical condition or disability – whether psychiatric or physical – he or she must protect and secure one’s financial future.  Filing for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS is a viable option which allows for the Postal Worker to retire, receive a monthly annuity, retain the Health Insurance benefits from the Federal System, and go on to find other employment and be allowed to earn up to 80% of what the former Postal Job currently pays.  Remember – OWCP is not a retirement system.  As such, while it is a temporary means of being compensated, it will not last forever.  Further, remember that an individual under FERS or CSRS may concurrently file for OWCP benefits and get a Federal Disability Retirement approved, and continue to remain on OWCP until such time that one’s OWCP benefits are cut off or otherwise terminated.  If you already have the FERS or CSRS disability retirement benefits approved, you can “activate” such benefits once your OWCP benefits are terminated.  This is an important point to consider, because it can often take 6 – 8 months, or more, to get a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS approved.

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

Postal Supervisors

Posted on by
1

The U.S. Postal Service can act as a little fiefdom, with minimal oversight in the use of power.  There is no school which teaches the proper use of power; power is something which is too often misused, misapplied, and abused.  And, those who possess power, often exponentially apply it when the focus of such power has become vulnerable.

Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, who are in the vulnerable position of necessarily filing for disability retirement benefits under FERS & CSRS because of the imposition of an unwanted medical condition which impacts and impedes his or her ability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, are especially in a sensitive position, precisely because they are at the complete mercy of the Supervisor.

Supervisors need to understand and appreciate the great power which he or she possesses. The powerful need not misuse such power in order to show how powerful he or she is; indeed, it is in the very act of kindness, empathy, and the ability to show sensitivity and “human-ness” which is the true showing of the powerful.

Supervisors should “bend over backwards” to show what it means to truly be a Supervisor — one who recognizes and appreciates the long years of loyal service the disabled employee has shown; empathy for the vulnerable situation the Postal employee now finds him/herself in; kindness in the treatment of the employee.

Such kind treatment will go a long way towards encouraging a sense of community and family within an agency, and will foster the other employees in the department, office, and greater agency to work that much harder, knowing that it is not “just a job” — but a career worthy of greater devotion.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire