U.S. Postal Service injuries: The Durable Body

Have you ever seen those videos depicting mechanized arms repetitively opening and closing a car door in order to test the durability of an automobile’s structural soundness?  Robots and automation have replaced such testing scenarios; for, in the “old days”, you can imagine a “quality assurance specialist” opening and closing, opening and closing the door, the hood, the trunk, etc., to make sure that it doesn’t fall apart — and in the meantime, doing grave damage to the inspector’s own anatomy because of repetitive stress upon doing the same job over and over again.

Flat sorting machines at USPS distribution centersThe human body has often been marveled at.  If from a religious viewpoint, it is perfection created in the image of a perfect being.  If from an evolutionary standpoint, it is the result of a lengthy elimination of genetic mishaps through trial-and-error consummated by a process where the survival of the “fittest” wins out.  Yet, every functional anatomy — whether made of human flesh, of mechanical apparatus or a combination of both (what was once referred to as “bionic” limbs) — has its limitations, and whether the human body was meant to undergo repetitive usage necessitated by the requirements of employment is a question to be pondered.

U.S. Postal workers are exposed to a unique hazard — that of repetitive stress injuries.  Such injuries or medical conditions are caused by the human anatomy engaging in repeated movements and motions performed over and over again, whether for employment or in daily living activities.  The effects culminating from such activities are often identified as “repetitive stress injuries”, or sometimes as “cumulative trauma disorders”, “repetitive motion disorders” or “overuse syndromes”.  However one terms it, the resultant consequences encapsulate a wide range of medical conditions and injuries which impact muscles, ligaments, tendons, nerves, and the structural integrity of interconnective tissues which make the miracle of the human body work.

U.S. Postal workers are particularly susceptible to such injuries, precisely because they must engage in such repetitive motions and movements in the daily course of their craft.  The result?  Various medical conditions arise, including (but certainly not exhaustively limited to):

Postal workers who suffer from such injuries are often faced with multiple challenges:  As injuries often mount once a single medical condition begins to develop (the known phenomena of, “When it rains, it pours”), and as age begins to play a factor in one’s career (can one make it to age 56 with 30 years of repetitive stress?), can it be proven that such injuries are occupationally-related?  And what about the phenomena of the “last straw that broke the camel’s back”?  You know — you work as a letter carrier for 25 years and have been feeling sore knees for quite some time, but on a bright and sunny day you decide to challenge your teenage son to a pick-up game on the basketball court and twist your knee.  Question:  Was it really that overenthusiastic jump shot that resulted in a jarring crunch to the knee, or the 25 years of walking 10 – 20 miles on concrete surfaces that ended with a bum knee?  Of course, the Emergency Room Report notes that the “individual comes in today with right knee pain; says he was playing basketball with his son when…”.

Was the human body meant for decades of repetitive activities or motions?  Certainly, there are mitigating ways of working that one should be aware of when first a person takes on a career which will require repetitive work.  But, then, when we were 20 or so, who ever thought that we were less than invincible, indestructible, and of an enduring quantity?  The Mail Processing Clerk, the Mail Handler, the Letter Carrier, the Flat Sorter (Automation), the Electronic Technician — in his or her early days, could do the job, come home and jog 5 miles for leisure and relaxation.  Then, into one’s 30s, perhaps the tinge of soreness and hint of fatigue forced you to cut back to less strenuous activities; and by 40 or so, watching a football game was preferable to actively playing the sport, with a compromise that “gardening” was just as healthy and walking to the grocery store was good exercise as well.  Days and weeks go by; and months turn into years.  Throughout, without being fully conscious of the consequences, you have been engaging in uninterrupted repetitions of movements and activities at work which involves extensive overexertion often at the expense of proper posture or adequate rest.  Singular or multiple symptoms begin to appear:  Pain; aching that will not go away; tenderness at various sites; stiffness that cannot be stretched-away; throbbing; tingling; persistent pain; numbness; loss of sleep because of the high distractibility of pain; fatigue that borders on profound fatigue.

You are suffering from Repetitive Stress Injury.

Whether the impact is upon your shoulder, neck, back, fingers, wrists elbows, ankles, feet or some other part of your anatomy, the miracle of the durable body has begun to reveal its structural vulnerabilities.  When that realization comes to light, the distance between what you have accomplished and the goal of retirement becomes a seemingly insurmountable gap.  Filing for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS may be the best option for the Postal worker who can no longer endure the repetition required of a craft employee — or even of Managers, Supervisors and Postmasters.  It is a benefit which must be fought for and proven — that you are no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of your positional requirements.  The human body was ultimately never intended for endless repetitive stress, and for the Postal worker who suffers an injury or medical condition resulting from a workplace injury — or even from an off-site injury from a pick-up basketball game ( remember that eligibility for disability retirement, unlike Worker’s Compensation, does not depend upon the medical condition being work-related), consider the benefit of filing for Federal Disability Retirement with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

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

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

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.

National Reassessment Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————


 

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

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

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

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

d) Miscellaneous posts:


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

     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.