USPS Retirement Information

The Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) administers both USPS retirement programs - the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). The CSRS generally applies to employees who received a career appointment before January 1, 1984 while the FERS applies to employees whose initial career appointment was January 1, 1984 or later, and CSRS employees that elected to transfer to FERS. Both systems have the same purposes, however, both operate under a unique set of guidelines and rules. 

Many employees believe that USPS retirement benefits are some of the most substantial in the nation. Many, upon reaching retirement age, are shocked to learn they will be facing a 50% to 75% or more loss in income after retirement. Although, postal retirement benefits may not be all that public legend has them to be, they can provide a secure retirement with the proper planning.

Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS)

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS)

Legal Updates impacting Disability Retirement Laws For FERS and CSRS Employees

"What is the difference between the madman, the mediocre, and the Master? The madman fails to master reality, and therefore is unable to function with knowledge; the mediocre may have some knowledge, but fails to master it; and the Master - he is the rare one who sees the reality, seeks the knowledge, and is able to grasp both." - From Ancient Parables

I have often discussed the legal advantages of being separated from Federal Service for one's "medical inability to perform" one's job, which results in what is commonly known as the "Bruner Presumption," where such a termination results in a prima facie showing of his or her burden of proof. What this means is that, with such a termination, the "burden of production" shifts to the Office of Personnel Management, who must disprove your entitlement to disability retirement. Bruner v. Office of Personnel Management, 996 F.2d 290, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Bruner was a 1993 case, and still applies today. However, further developments since then have expanded the applicability of the Bruner Presumption, and they are of importance for those filing for disability retirement.

The Merit Systems Protection Board has held that removal for "extended absences is equivalent to removal for physical inability to perform where it is accompanied by specifications indicating that the decision to remove was based on medical documentation suggesting that the appellant was disabled and unable to perform her duties." McCurdy v. OPM, Docket #DA-844E-03-0088-I-1 (April 30, 2004), citing as authority Ayers-Kavtaradze v. OPM, 91 M.S.P.R. 397 (2002). What this means is that, the mere fact that a removal letter does not specifically state that you are being separated from service for you "medical inability to perform" your job, does not necessarily mean that you are not entitled to the Bruner Presumption. That is why it is often important to have an attorney involved in negotiating the terms of a removal action, especially where removal is an action about to happen. For instance, if it is becoming clear that you have been on LWOP for a period approaching a year, it might be a good idea to submit medical reports and documents showing the medical basis for your LWOP. Or, if a Notice of Proposed Removal has been issued, it is important to respond to such a proposal by submitting medical documentation establishing the basis for your non-attendance at work.

Now, the next and natural question is: How far will the Merit Systems Protection Board go in giving you the Bruner Presumption? The answer: It is not always important to get the Bruner Presumption, as it is to argue for the Bruner Presumption. In my experience litigating these cases before the Board, I have found that it is helpful to make a forceful argument that my client should be entitled to the Bruner Presumption, based upon all of the circumstantial evidence. And, even if I am not able to convince the Administrative Judge that my client is entitled to the Bruner Presumption, the argument itself highlights the fact to the Judge that it was a close call -- and this often leads to a victory.

Indeed, as a rather funny aside, after I had submitted a legal memorandum and argued to a Judge during a Prehearing Conference that the Bruner Presumption should apply in a particular case, the Judge stated to me, "Mr. McGill, according to your argument, the Bruner Presumption should always apply!" To which I responded: "Your Honor, that would indeed be my preference."

Furthermore, it is also of vital importance to appeal a removal action whenever possible and legally permissible, especially where the removal action was based upon the alleged misconduct of the individual. Why? Because by appealing the removal action, you always stand the chance of coming to a compromise with the Agency, and having the Agency change the basis of the removal to one of "inability to perform the job" or, at the very least, to "resignation based upon medical problems." The case-law is consistent in holding that the Board will "generally give effect to the terms of a settlement agreement between an applicant for disability retirement and her employing agency in determining the applicant's entitlement to disability retirement." Jordan v. Office of Personnel Management, 77 M.S.P.R. 610, 614-17 (1998), recons. Denied, 86 M.S.P.R. 144 (2000); and Bynum v. OPM, DC-831E-00-0093-I-1 (June 29, 2001). Similarly, cases such as Morton v. OPM, PH-844E-99-0224-I-1 (June 28, 2001) -- where, while the Board found that the Appellant was not entitled to disability retirement, went out of its way to clarify the fact that the Administrative Judge was "improperly influenced by" the original removal action, and that the original removal action should not have been considered in making the determination concerning disability retirement entitlement. Similarly, in Lewis v. OPM, CH-831E-98-0434-I-2, the Board stated unequivocally that the Board "will give effect to the terms of a settlement agreement between an applicant for disability retirement and her employing agency, in determining the applicant's entitlement to disability retirement."

In other words, even if you were originally removed for misconduct, if your removal is later changed by a settlement agreement with the Agency, and you subsequently file for disability retirement, the Administrative Judge must keep a blind eye with respect to the original removal action.

In the course of representing Federal and Postal Workers to obtain disability retirement benefits, I have always tried to emphasize the fact that, while it is each individual's choice as to whether or not to hire an attorney, you should always proceed with the greatest tool available -- knowledge. Disability Retirement is a benefit accorded to all Federal and Postal Employees under FERS and CSRS. However, as with all benefits, the right to it remains unclaimed unless one proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one is legally entitled to it. To prove your claim, you must go at it from a position of strength -- and this requires knowledge. My name is Robert R. McGill, Esquire. I am an attorney who specializes in disability retirement claims. If you would like to discuss your particular case, you may contact me at 1-800-990-7932, or email me at DisabilityAtty@msn.com.

Preparing the Proper Bridge to Win a Disability Retirement Case under FERS and CSRS

"Then, there is the story of an old man who wanted to have peace and quiet , and become a recluse. So he built a castle, and began first by digging a moat so wide and deep that none would be able to violate his privacy. Thereafter, he filled the moat with water, and released crocodiles and other dangerous creatures to keep all strangers away. Next, he scattered broken glass and sharp objects on the outer perimeter of the moat, to ensure that none would be able to enter. Alas, when it came time to build his home in the middle of the moat, none could enter, for the old man had forgotten to first build a bridge." - From Stories Forgotten

Many individuals who have filed for disability retirement benefits with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), get their applications rejected because they have not created the proper "nexus", or bridge, between their medical condition and the duties of their job. Remember, disability retirement is unlike Worker's Comp or Social Security. Under Worker's Comp, often the primary focus is to prove the causation between work and injury -- in other words, the "bridge" that needs to be constructed is one that shows that one's medical condition was directly caused by, or occurred at, the worksite. For Social Security disability, the focus is often upon establishing the existence of a specifically diagnosed medical condition, one which is accepted by the Social Security Administration as causing a 'debilitating' or 'disabling' condition, such that 'total disability' can be established. In each case, the "bridge" to be constructed is different. So it is also with disability retirement under OPM.

Remember that, for disability retirement under CSRS or FERS, it is not so important what the medical disability is, as it is to show that the symptoms one has impacts directly upon one's ability or inability to perform one's job. Indeed, in the bedrock case of Bruner v. OPM, 996 F.2d 290 (Fed.Cir. 1993), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals stated that it is the "relationship between the service deficiency and the medical condition," (emphasis added) which is one of the important "bridges" which must be established in a disability retirement case. Thus, I find that many individuals who have attempted to file for disability retirement at the first stage, and who have had his or her application denied, come to me because of a failure of creating a "nexus", or a bridge, between what the diagnosed medical condition is, and what the job requires. Thus, by way of a simple example, an applicant might think that because he or she suffers from severe knee problems, that one needs only to have the doctor give a diagnosis, attach some medical records, and expect that OPM will grant him disability retirement. This might be true if the individual's job is as a Letter Carrier for the U.S. Postal Service (although, even in such an instance, OPM will be very skeptical and require a complete explanation); but it might not work if you work as a Computer Specialist with a Federal Agency, where you have a sedentary position not requiring daily repetitive use of your knees. In either case, what is important is to have the doctor show how the medical disability impacts upon one's ability to perform his or her job. (In the latter example, it may be that the chronic pain in his knee requires a medication regimen of narcotic pain relievers, and such medication impacts upon his ability to focus upon a cognitively-intense job. In such a case, I have been able to get OPM to accept such a claim, even in a sedentary job).

Often, individuals make the mistake of treating disability retirement claims under FERS and CSRS as if it was a Social Security claim. However, the "official diagnosis", or name of the disability, is not important for disability retirement claims. Instead, it is the relationship between the symptoms one has, and the impact of those symptoms upon the requirements of the job. Similarly, neither 'causation' nor 'permanent and stationary' are relevant for disability retirement claims (whereas they are obviously important in OWCP cases). Indeed, I have had clients who, despite having serious and debilitating medical disabilities, had their claims rejected by the Office of Personnel Management. At the Reconsideration Stage, I have been successful at getting them approved, not by obtaining more medical documentation, but rather, by clearly outlining to the Office of Personnel Management, in detail, what the applicant's job required, and showing the relationship between the serious medical condition and the requirements of the job.

This is similarly true at the Merit Systems Protection Board (M.S.P.B.) level of an appeal in disability retirement claims (the Third Stage in the process). At the M.S.P.B. level, I always insist upon having a medical doctor testify via a telephonic hearing. At the Telephone Hearing, I always have the doctor explain, in methodical detail, the relationship between the medical disability, and the kind of job the Applicant is required to do. Indeed, this requirement of mine has been successful -- not because of my own "brilliance" (although, admittedly, I would like to think that I have some part in the success of a disability retirement claim), but rather, because that is what the law requires. Thus, in Dunn v. OPM, 60 M.S.P.R. 426, 432 (1994), the Board stated therein that 'absent a clear and reasoned explanation of how a medical condition affects an employee's specific work requirements, a physician's conclusions on disability are unpersuasive', appeal dismissed, 91 F.3d 169 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Again, note how the law requires you to show the relationship, or "bridge", between the medical condition and the type of job one performs.

Disability Retirement is a benefit accorded to all Federal and Postal Employees under FERS and CSRS. However, as with all benefits, the right to it remains unclaimed unless one proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one is legally entitled to it. In order to make such a claim valid, you must assert your legal right to it. My name is Robert R. McGill, Esquire. I am an attorney who specializes in disability retirement claims. If you would like to discuss your particular case, you may contact me at 1-800-990-7932, or email me at DisabilityAtty@msn.com.

Subject: How to win a disability retirement case under CSRS and FERS

"Strike three...you're out!" screamed the umpire.

"How could I miss all three times?" asked the young boy, dejectedly, as he walked back to the dugout.

 "If you swing the same swing at three different pitches, you ain't about to hit any of them," said the manager, resting his arm around the young boy's shoulders. "Recognize each pitch, and swing accordingly." - from Baseball Stories then and now

Individuals attempting to file for disability retirement, either under FERS or CSRS, on their own, and without an attorney, must meet the same standards, same criteria, and same legal thresholds, as those who are represented. While it may cost an individual in the short term to hire an attorney, that cost may be insignificant compared to the loss of a long-term investment -- the monthly annuity income which may span years, and even decades, depending upon your age.

In applying for disability retirement under FERS or CSRS, you essentially have three shots at succeeding. First, there is the initial stage of review before the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). If OPM denies the application at this initial stage, you may Request Reconsideration -- and at this stage, you are given an opportunity to submit additional medical and other documentation, as well as make legal arguments. If OPM refuses you the second time, you may appeal your case to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and have an administrative judge independent of the Office of Personnel Management, hear your case.

There are two additional stages -- an appeal to the Full Board, as well as a further appeal to the Court of Federal Appeals; however, to have either of these legal bodies reverse the decision of an MSPB judge is extremely difficult.

The problem with individuals attempting to obtain disability retirement on their own, is their lack of knowledge of the legal standards required. This then leads to making the same mistake at each stage of the process. The key is to know what the legal standard is; to recognize that the "benefits clerk" at OPM is not necessarily an individual who knows what he or she is talking about, and to point out the error of OPM's decision (courteously, but firmly), and to rebut any arguments made by OPM. This then lays out a successful foundation in the event that your case must be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Time, care, money and investment at preparing your case at Stage 1 will avoid a needless denial of your disability retirement application.

Unrepresented individuals who have had their applications denied have come to me with the letter from OPM blatantly misstating the applicable law. For example, I have come across some denial letters which state in the "Discussion" section, that the applicant "has failed to establish that he is totally disabled from performing his job." To begin with, this is not the legal standard. Second, OPM knows better than to make such a statement, but will often do so -- knowing that the unrepresented individual does not know better. Third, such a statement from OPM implies further that a concrete nexus must be proven between one's medical disability and the performance of one's job, when in fact more recent M.S.P.B. cases have relaxed the standards. However, if you are representing yourself, you will not be aware of the more recent cases, and such lack of knowledge may well be to your detriment.

Ever since the case of Mullins-Howard v. Office of Personnel Management, 71 M.S.P.R. 619, 627 (1996), in which the Board stated that an employee's entitlement to disability retirement does not always turn on a "finely tuned correlation between particular medical impairments and specific job requirements," the Board has often softened their legal standards based upon individual circumstances. For example, in Thieman v. Office of Personnel Management, 78 M.S.P.R. 113, 116-117 (1998), the Board held that an appellant's medical condition may be incompatible with useful and efficient service even if the disability detrimentally affects just one of the critical elements of his position. Thus, while in the past, strong medical evidence -- unequivocal and almost irrefutable -- was the only basis upon which to win a disability retirement case, more recent cases have seriously considered the appellant's own testimony of subjective pain and inability to work, particularly where it is supported by "competent" medical evidence. See Davis v. Office of Personnel Management, 89 M.S.P.R. 690 (2001); Mansfield v. Office of Personnel Management, 67 M.S.P.R. 40, 43 (1995); and Cole v. Office of Personnel Management, 88 M.S.P.R. 54, 58-59 (2001), where the Board held that the appellant's own testimony of subjective pain and inability to work must be "seriously" considered, particularly where it is supported by competent medical evidence; and further, finely tuned correlation between particular medical impairments and specific job requirements were "unnecessary" to prove her claim.

Being armed with a thorough knowledge of the law is the only way to refute the Office of Personnel Management, who may or may not base its decision upon the correct interpretation of the law. Just as the boy who swung the bat the same way at three different pitches -- and missed each time -- an individual who files for disability retirement must approach each stage of the process in different ways, and respond with force and confidence, armed in the knowledge of the law.

Whenever I am hired, one of the first things that I do is to write a 3-page letter to each of the medical providers, outlining the type of medical report which is needed to allow the disability retirement applicant to obtain his or her annuity. This letter is important in guiding the doctor to provide a "quality" medical narrative in preparing the disability retirement packet. Remember, disability retirement is a benefit granted to all Federal and Postal employees, but it is merely a "passive" benefit unless and until you affirmatively prove your case that you are entitled to it. Prepare your disability retirement application as if it is a lifetime investment; for, indeed, it is a lifetime investment. If you believe that you need to consult an attorney concerning disability retirement, please contact me at 1-800-990-7932, or email me at DisabilityAtty@msn.com. My ad also appears weekly in the Federal Times.