*Listen to a short podcast about doctors*

ANSWER: Probably not very well. Most will not be happy, for a variety of reasons. Here are some of the reasons often expressed by physicians who are asked by patients to help them get disability retirement:

"These questions OPM asks are ridiculous!"

It's absolutely true that at least some of the five questions that doctors are asked to answer on the "Physician's Statement" are either absurd, unintelligible, or medically irrelevant. In fact, the degree to which the physician should consider each and every question varies with the nature of the case. In general, the more subjective the symptoms, the more carefully each of the questions should be dealt with. Unfortunately, this is a difficult judgment call for physicians who don't have any direct experience with OPM's disability retirement program. A primary task of the attorney is to encourage and assist the physician in this task.

"I can't possibly charge for all the time its going to take me to answer these questions!"

Not unreasonably, physicians want to get paid for their time and work. Physicians are often unsure as to how to charge patients for the sometimes great amount of time and work required to properly prepare a "Physician's Statement." It does not fall easily under a predetermined diagnostic code on some form, and insurance will often not cover it. The remedy is to assure your physician that you will pay fully for all the time involved that is not otherwise covered.

"No one will ever believe that this patient is disabled!"

Many doctors, just like most of the rest of us, tend to define a disabled person as some sort of basket case. Doctors are concerned that they will be perceived as dishonest in going to bat for a patient who doesn't appear to fit that picture. The physician needs to come to terms with the disability retirement law, and how it differs from other laws such as workers' compensation. Doctors who are not experienced with disability retirement for government employees do not understand that the program does not require total disability, and it even permits you to work at another job while collecting. But quite truthfully, this is the type of lesson best taught by an attorney with sufficient experience to answer the inevitable questions that the physician is going to raise. If necessary, an attorney can assure a physician that the patient is a proper candidate for disability retirement.

"I'm going to end up in court on this one!"

Most physicians dread the thought of being hauled into court as a witness in any sort of legal matter, let alone in what they perceive as some difficult-to-prove "subjective" symptoms case. Not to worry! Disability retirement cases never make it to court, and rarely ever make it to a hearing at the MSPB. One way to dispel the physician's anxiety on this issue may be by providing a copy of this book as part of your campaign to enlist wholehearted cooperation. If that doesn't work, have your doctor phone me.

ANSWER: You don't have to prove it, in the sense of being required to produce objective medical evidence. In certain clear-cut cases (i.e. that of the typist whose hand was cut off), it is easy to prove disability. But such cases are the exceptions. More frequently, disabling symptoms are impossible to prove, and, contrary to popular belief, the law does not require you to do the impossible. Subjective but very disabling symptoms (such as fatigue, chronic pain, phobias, depression, and allergies) are usually impossible to prove, because no objective medical evidence is usually available. Yet they are among the most common disabilities for which government employees seek and obtain a monthly disability annuity. Employees with subjective symptoms, regardless of their medical condition, face the greatest difficulties before OPM.

Sometimes, even when you can provide objective medical evidence to support your claim, OPM may not be interested in looking at it. In one case, I sent a client's x-rays to OPM to demonstrate that he had a slipped disc. OPM refused to accept them, saying that it had no place to store x-rays. You would think that if only to prevent potential fraud, OPM would have demanded such information, not blindly turned it away.