Last Updated on August 26, 2009 by FERS Disability Attorney
The problem with basing one’s future stability upon an “OWCP Paradigm”, or “model”, are multiple in nature. To begin with, you cannot work at another job while receiving OWCP temporary total disability payments. Thus, while you may be an injured worker, and unable to perform the essential elements of your Federal or Postal job, you may nevertheless be able to be productive in some other capacity, and may be capable of starting a business or working in some other field. This is true if you are on OPM Disability retirement: You can go out and get another job, and make up to 80% of what your former position currently pays, and continue to receive your disability annuity. This is a good deal, in my view, because it provides an incentive to go out and become productive, and to plan for the future.
Furthermore, OWCP/Department of Labor is notorious for cutting off benefits at the first sign that you are anything less than fully cooperative with their dictates. OWCP may send you to a “second opinion” doctor who finds that you are “completely recovered”, thereby endangering your Worker’s Comp benefits. Or, in order to save money, they may dictate to you that you must work as a Wal-Mart greeter, and pay you the difference between a menial job (not of your choice) and what they are paying you. If you refuse, OWCP may simply ascribe what they believe you can earn, and pay you the difference — or not pay you anything. While OWCP has procedures for appealing decisions, it is a long and arduous road to take.
These are only some of the problems associated with basing one’s future upon a Worker’s Compensation paradigm. That is not to say that one should not file for and accept OWCP payments — it definitely pays more, and for a temporary period of payments in order for an injured Federal or Postal employee to remain financially solvent in order to recover from one’s work-related injuries, it is a good program. As a paradigm for planning for one’s future, however, there is much to be desire.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire