QuickTopic logo Create New TopicNew Topic My TopicsMy Topics News
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

National Reassessment - NRP

Welcome to Postal Employee Network Discussions!
Please Visit Our Homepage
^     All messages            4518-4533 of 4533  4502-4517 >>
4533
John
04-19-2014
12:21 PM ET (US)
Me yes my case has been different having been injured by a 3rd party.
Their were to many people involved that really did not have the knowledge that was needed in this type injury. Thus many problems caused that had not been answered correctly on PO forms and passed to other agencies.
It has been very difficult trying to get a rating issued by the DOL removed for the last 4 years, which Snow just discussed. My letters have gone unanswered
4532
brewski
04-18-2014
02:51 PM ET (US)
Snowed, you are correct. I signed a modified permanent job offer, worked that job for 5 months, and then was showed the door.
4531
fecaadvocate
04-18-2014
01:22 PM ET (US)
 It appears that the Administrative Judge granted final approval of the Pittman settlement agreement on April 4, 2014. It looks like the claim forms and release along with the final approval decision will be mailed out by the USPS to potential class members around May 5, 2014.

I wish everyone good luck.
4530
Peg
04-18-2014
01:11 AM ET (US)
Post #4519 - Snowed.
"The SECOP report cannot take precedence over your treating and even on the USPS job offer second page (make sure they give you that) states they will go by your treating physicians restrictions."

Isn't OWCP going to use the 2nd opinion and referee doctors' reports that are unfavorable, to intentionally close out someone's claim?
Giving precedence and creditbility to the 2nd opinion/referee reports over a treating physician.
OWCP will choose to agree with an unfavorable report, because they paid the doctors who wrote it.
How long would it take after unfavorable 2nd opinion/referee reports, for OWCP to make a move to try to close someone's claim?

Do you know if OWCP have closed claims based on 2nd opinions?, and referee doctors unfavorable reports?
It would become 2 OWCP doctors against someone's own treating physician - 2 against 1.
OWCP would then give priority to the outside 2nd opinion doctors over someone's own treating physician.

Some outside doctors chosen by OWCP have a closed mind to think that being out on NRP has cured the job injury, when they have not followed the injury over the years. The outside doctors only see someone for 10-15 minutes for a 2nd opinion exam, and write their "unbiased" false report and send it to OWCP, and start trouble for the claimant.

Once the bad reports are written, they can not be removed from the claim file.
What can be done next??... because the treating physician is sick of repeating the same things in repeating narrative reports to OWCP.

Since it has been so many years out on NRP, OWCP is trying to find any doctor that will write what they want.

Does anyone recommend taking retirement over dealing with the continuous B.S. from OWCP?
Thanks.
Edited 04-18-2014 01:14 AM
4529
Me
04-17-2014
08:02 AM ET (US)
Snowed.. thanks, I feel much better.. Ya, the whole job offer doesn't sound right and I have been reading up on it all.. they gave me 2 wks to respond.. first day I flipped when I got it, then I told myself to calm down and got about to reading up on rules/regs... I too believe permanent modified tag is bogus...seeing it will be abolished when I am not doing job offer anymore,not only that, this doesn't comply with my pre-arb agreement... new HRM's don't realize I have been dealing with this crap far longer than them.. thank you sooooo much for the info and advice... this site gives me knowledge to keep fighting...just because management says so, does not mean it is true....
4528
SnowedPerson was signed in when posted
04-17-2014
12:00 AM ET (US)
I say the "permanent modified" tag is bogus as they have walked out many with this type of job.
4527
SnowedPerson was signed in when posted
04-16-2014
11:55 PM ET (US)
Me-
I would talk to the union about these so called "permanent modified" position which is briefly mentioned in the ELM I posted below. It seems like removing the word "limited duty" changes the nature of the job at least for the USPS's point of view. As for OWCP, like I said earlier, if the modification will not last after you leave the job, then a LWEC is not appropriate for the job offer.
4526
SnowedPerson was signed in when posted
04-16-2014
11:50 PM ET (US)
http://www.apwu.org/dept/ind-rel/usps_hbks...5%20(9.49%20mb).pdf
4525
SnowedPerson was signed in when posted
04-16-2014
11:01 PM ET (US)
"FECA bulletin 09-05
http://www.apwu.org/dept/human-rel/hr-injurycomp-newnrlp-ld_b.pdf
I. Claims for TOTAL DISABILITY
A. LWEC decision HAS been issued ...
If a formal LWEC decision has been issued, the CE must develop the evidence to
determine whether a modification of that LWEC is appropriate.
1. All Postal Service cases where CA~7s are received that involve LWEC ratings '
based on actual positions should be reviewed to confirm that the file contains
eVidence that the LWEC rating was based on an actual bona fide position.
This evidence may include a job offer, an SF50, a classified position, a formal
Position Description or other documentary evidence of file. If It is determined
that the LWEC rating was without any factual or legal basis at the time it was
issued, the file should be 'properly documented and the LWEC rating should be
formally modified, The CE should then proceed to the action items for cases
without LWEC decisions in the file.
"
Edited 04-16-2014 11:59 PM
4524
SnowedPerson was signed in when posted
04-16-2014
10:47 PM ET (US)
Me-
"This position has been created exclusively for you, once you vacate this position for any reason, it will be abolished..."

This is your argument against any formal LWEC. They cannot do a formal LWEC on a job that is not suitable. To be suitable it must be a job that exists before you accept it and after you leave it.

I will get back to you on the ELM citations.
4523
Me
04-16-2014
02:14 PM ET (US)
John.. I've been reading some of your post and your case sounds complicated..
As far as I can figure, po feels they will lose in arbitration so they settled in pre-arb..
sorry, don't know what Step 4 is, and without knowing what your settlement agreement states, not sure what I can tell you...if there was a pre-arb agreement, I would get a copy of that first.. I had to call the business agent who did my pre-arb and request he send it to me.. this way further on down the road I will file for non-compliance... if part of your agreement states you are to be made whole... I would start on that right away....
4522
John
04-16-2014
11:42 AM ET (US)
Me your case sounds familiar from the start. What state you from?
I just had arbitration and it was a pre-arbitration settlement placing me in a step 4, by the Northeast Regional Rep, NRLCA who comes from Mayville, MI., who settled with the PO. I received a form letter stating this. I waited 3 weeks for a explanation why pre-arbitration and received nothing from her.
I am trying to get info on what I gained over going to arbitrator ? Nobody in Union in D.C. will answer after sending my mailed questions and waiting another 5 weeks and still no answer from D.C., from Dir. of Labor Relations Joey C. Johnson - who my questions were mailed to.
Needless to say 4 1/2 years and still nothing settled and now in step 4 which was file March 2010 and I am still trying to get my OWCP benefits owed since Nov., 2009 - what a disgrace. The union approached me a year ago to settle my grievance with the PO. and this is what I get!!
Edited 04-16-2014 01:41 PM
4521
Me
04-16-2014
08:50 AM ET (US)
Snowed.. do you know what rule/reg I can use to show this is not a permanent job offer? I figure the next step, once po gets me back to work is to do a Loss of wage earning capacity on me.. they have tried that once before.. they called OWCP and told my CE they were going to give me a permanent job and asked for a LWEC done on me, which OWCP did.. As soon as OWCP did the LWEC, PO started the NRP process on me.. lucky for me I was knowledgeable enough then to get it overturned once po walked me out....

another thing with this job offer, po said to go the MSPB route... I am not doing this, because I still have a arbitration settlement in place that states po must give me suitable job offer that follows rules of the ELM... going the MSPB route, I consider would be a collecterall attack on the settlement agreement which was under the grievance procedure... job offer only states mspb route and no other... which again I feel po is pushing me in only one direction and not all options...
4520
Me
04-16-2014
07:40 AM ET (US)
Snowed..
ya, I didn't refuse but requested ca-17's for medical updates.. but like the way you worded it..
I thought se-cop report could take precedence over my treating, but there was mention of sending me to a third dr...
thanks I will send restrictions to both claims..
this is stated a permanent modified duty assignment and this position has been created exclusively for you, once you vacate this position for any reason, it will be abolished...
funny how they wrote this job offer.. this is the first time it is not on form 2499 where page 2 states they will go by my physicians restrictions..
this is written on regular paper...
I thought that was weird.. that they were trying to protect themselves with not writing job offer on form 2499..
4519
SnowedPerson was signed in when posted
04-15-2014
01:27 PM ET (US)
Me-
I would not refuse anything. I would let OWCP respond. You can just reply to usps that you are waiting for OWCP suitability determination because of multiple medical issues. Send all your medical restrictions and documentation to your new claim as well as the old claim. The SECOP report cannot take precedence over your treating and even on the USPS job offer second page (make sure they give you that) states they will go by your treating physicians restrictions.

What kind of permanent offer? Is it a classified, funded position? It can't be permanent if it is a modified position to accommodate your personal restrictions.

Just to be clear...ecomp or send new claim restrictions to the old claim and old claim restrictions to the new claim. It is not necessary to include the bad SECOP report. make sure all restrictions are current(less than 6 months old)
Edited 04-15-2014 01:34 PM
4518
Me
04-14-2014
05:47 PM ET (US)
Snowed.. how would you handle this?
got injured 2005, working LDJ at 4hrs a day restriction till,
got nrp'd in 2010
got new LDJO in 2013, argued it was against dr's restrictions
long story short.. went back, 4hr restriction got reinjured, new claim accepted..receiving comp 4hrs on new claim and 4hrs on old claim...
OWCP said job offer no good, sent to a secop, who said I was really bad but writes down I can work 8hrs a day...
po gives me 8hr permanent job offer on new claim...
this same secop wrote work 4hrs a day on old claim and was at MMI..
I wrote PM that I have other medical conditions as he well knows from old claim and requested CA-17's and after my dr fills that out I will respond to his job offer, as he wrote I am suppose to update my medicals every yr...
PM is acting like old claim doesn't exist...
hasn't sent me any CA-17's either...
Union says to get my dr to list restrictions and medically explain why I can't do the job...
this goes on and on...
I feel I should wait for CA-17's, then refuse job offer on old claim... as even se-cop stated 4hrs a day and I was at MMI..
what do you think? hopefully you can understand what I am asking...
^     All messages            4518-4533 of 4533  4502-4517 >>