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.

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.

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