Postal Worker Waited Too Late To Submit Doctor’s Note — Loses Job!

The Postal Service sent Taylor a directive informing him of the results of the medical assessment and ordered him to report to work or be considered absent without leave (“AWOL”) and face removal. Taylor never reported or responded to this directive. On April 8, 2008, the Postal Service issued a notice of proposed removal based on the charge of “Unsatisfactory Attendance – AWOL.” After the ten-day deadline to answer the notice, Taylor submitted a letter from his physician that stated that Taylor was still unable to work — but it was too late. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld MSPB’s decision.

Here is the case:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case No. DA0752090155-I-1.

Decided: September 10, 2010

AVERY K. TAYLOR, of Houston, Texas, pro se.

DAVID C. BELT, Appellate Attorney, Office of General Counsel, United States Postal Service, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief was LORI J. DYM, Chief Counsel, Office of General Counsel, United States Postal Service, of Washington, DC, and TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was SCOTT A.MACGRIFF, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN and LINN, Circuit Judges.


Avery Taylor appeals a final decision of the Merit Sys-tems Protection Board (“Board”), which affirmed his removal from his position as a letter carrier with the U.S. Postal Service (“Service”) for unexcused absences. Taylor v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. DA-0752-09-0155-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Dec. 17, 2009) (“Decision”). Because the Board’s opinion was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbi-trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, we affirm.

Taylor joined the Service in October 1993. In September 2005, he stopped reporting for work, claiming that he suffered from job-related stress. Between November 2005 and July 2007, the Service sent Taylor multiple letters asking that he report for duty or provide medical documentation of his condition. In response to each request, Taylor submitted letters from his doctor that described his illness, and the Service took no action to remove him. By June 2006, Taylor exhausted all of his paid leave, so the Service placed him on leave without pay (“LWOP”) status.

In September 2007, the Service sent Taylor another letter asking him to report or furnish medical documenta-tion, at the risk of losing approved leave. Taylor re-sponded in writing, saying that his medical condition had not changed since July 2007, but without providing evi-dence. In November 2007, the Service ordered Taylor to report for a fitness for duty (“FFD”) medical examination. The designated physician, Dr. Charles Covert, submitted a report, which a Service physician used to make a medi-cal assessment, deciding that Taylor was fit for duty. Taylor objected to filling out a consent form prior to the examination and claims that Covert never examined him. According to the government, Service officials received only the final assessment, not Covert’s initial FFD report. Decision at 11 n.6.

On November 21, 2007, the Service sent Taylor a directive informing him of the results of the medical as-sessment and ordering him to report on November 26, 2007 or be considered absent without leave (“AWOL”) and face removal. Taylor never reported or responded to this directive. On April 8, 2008, the Service issued a notice of proposed removal based on the charge of “Unsatisfactory Attendance – AWOL.” After the ten-day deadline to answer the notice, Taylor submitted a letter from his physician that stated that Taylor was still unable to work. On June 13, 2008, the Service removed him. On appeal, the Board affirmed the Service’s ruling. Taylor timely appealed the Board’s final decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

We affirm a Board decision unless it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). To take an adverse action against an employee, an agency must (1) “establish by preponderant evidence that the charged conduct occurred,” (2) “show a nexus between that conduct and the efficiency of the service,” and (3) “demonstrate that the penalty imposed was rea-sonable in light of the relevant factors set forth in Doug-las v. Veterans Admin., 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 307-08 (1981).” Malloy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 578 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

“In order to prove a charge of AWOL, an agency must show by preponderant evidence that the employee was absent, and that his absence was not authorized or that his request for leave was properly denied.” Wesley v. U.S. Postal Serv., 94 M.S.P.R. 277, 283 (2003). An AWOL charge automatically satisfies the nexus requirement because “any sustained charge of AWOL is inherently connected to the efficiency of the service.” Davis v. Veter-ans Admin., 792 F.2d 1111, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Taylor argues that the Service improperly changed his status from LWOP to AWOL because Covert never actually examined him before clearing him for duty. In response, the government claims that Covert’s report is “not directly relevant” because Service officials did not receive or rely on it, only the final medical assessment. Resp’t’s Br. 26-27. This assertion is suspect: the assess-ment cited Covert’s evaluation, and both the November 21, 2007 directive and the notice of proposed removal referred to the “medical evaluation by Dr. Charles Cov-ert.” Regardless, the Board found that Taylor never requested extra leave or provided evidence of illness for the period from November 26, 2007 to April 8, 2008. Decision at 9-10. Taylor does not dispute these facts. Under these circumstances, the Service had discretion to deny Taylor additional leave based on his failure to pro-vide requested documentation. See Washington v. Dep’t of Army, 813 F.2d 390, 393 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (affirming denial of LWOP where the employee failed to submit “material necessary to support her claim that she was incapacitated for work”). There was substantial evidence for the Board to conclude that Taylor was indeed absent without per-mission.

Taylor also claims that the Service denied him mini-mum due process because he never had an opportunity to rebut Covert’s report. To the contrary, Taylor received multiple opportunities to present documentation of con-tinuing illness both before and after the medical assess-ment. He claims that he believed that the doctor’s letter he submitted in July 2007 obviated the need for further documentation. However, the Service requested addi-tional medical evidence in September 2007 prior to order-ing the FFD examination. Taylor responded in writing (which shows that he received the letter) but never pro-vided the requested information. He also acknowledged receipt of the Service’s directive of November 21, 2007—which informed him of the medical assessment and or-dered him to report to work—but did not reply or request additional leave without pay. Taylor then attended an investigative interview with his Postmaster in February 2008 but did not offer new medical evidence. Decision at 7. Not until May 9, 2008 did Taylor supply another physician’s letter, when it was too late to respond to the notice of proposed removal.

As to the penalty of removal, the Board properly bal-anced the relevant Douglas factors. It credited Taylor’s fifteen years of service and clean disciplinary record, but noted testimony by Service officials that a letter carrier’s absence creates serious hardships, and that Taylor could not be rehabilitated. We discern no clear error in the Board’s review of the Service’s penalty. Cf. Law v. U.S. Postal Serv., 852 F.2d 1278, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (affirm-ing the Service’s removal of a mailhandler for “for irregu-lar attendance and for an instance of AWOL”).

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board is affirmed.


No costs.


14 thoughts on “Postal Worker Waited Too Late To Submit Doctor’s Note — Loses Job!

  1. The prohibition against making disability-related inquiries applies to inquiries made
    directly to an employee, as well as to indirect or surreptitious inquiries such as a search through
    an employee’s belongings to confirm an employer’s suspicions about an employee’s medical
    condition. See Doe v. Kohn Nast & Graf, P.C., 866 F. Supp. 190, 3 AD Cas. (BNA) 1322 (E.D.
    Pa. 1994) As used in this guidance, the term “genetic information” has the same definition as
    “protected genetic information” in Executive Order 13145. In general, genetic information is
    information about an individual’s genetic tests, information about the genetic tests of an
    individual’s family members, or information about the occurrence of a disease, medical
    condition, or disorder in family members of the individual. See Exec. Order No. 13,145, To
    Prohibit Discrimination in Federal Employment Based on Genetic Information, 65 Fed. Reg.
    6877 (Feb. 8, 2000).
    For further argument, see, McDonnell v. Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04036 (Sept.13,
    2002), Reagins v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01974481 (Apr.6, 2000),
    Wheeler v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A30318 (Sept. 30, 2004), Calero-
    Cerezo v. U.S. Department of Justice, 355 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004), see, docket No. , SF-0752-09-
    0163-B-1, Appellant’s 29th, Pleading, dated, April 6, 2010, and all case’s cited therein, also
    known as, Pleading No. 2010006888, dated 4/6/2010, pages 4 thru 60 of 60, and as tab 37, pages
    4 thru 60 of 60, and all cases cited therein.

  2. Psychological and personality tests such as the Minnesota Multiphastic Personality
    Inventory (MMPI) are of particular concern. These tests are often used by employers prior to an
    offer being made, that is, when it is unlawful to make disability-related inquires. The MMPI
    includes questions that identify and evaluate individuals for various psychiatric disorders. Such
    tests are inappropriate at the pre-offer stage, because they are designed, “at least in part, to reveal
    mental illness and have the effect of hurting the employment prospects of one with a mental
    disability” If required to be administered after a conditional offer, and an employee with a
    disability is eliminated based on such a test, an employer must be able to somehow prove that the
    results of the test demonstrate that the employee is unable to perform the essential functions of
    the job safely, a task made difficult as these tests were not constructed for the purposes of
    identifying the best employees for a job. The Seventh Circuit held in Karraker v. Rent-A-Center,
    Inc. that the line is crossed by the use of personality assessment such as the Minnesota
    Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). 411 F.3d 831(7th Cir. 2005). See, ( Karraker v.
    Rent-A Center, Inc., 411 F.3rd 831, 833 and n.1) (7th Cir. 2005) See, Karraker, supra at 837
    (holding that the MMPI is a medical examination that cannot be administered pre-offer). The
    Court of Appeals held that the MMPI by its nature was a medical examination violating the
    ADA. An earlier case (Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Inc.) that arose in California and was
    ultimately settled raised similar issues, as well as views of test usage at the individual item level
    that alarmed psychologists. This is but one instance where science and law intersect, and where
    the outcome has real consequences to employers and potential employees. See, Sharona
    Hoffman, Preplacement Examinations and Job-Relatedness: How to Enhance Privacy and
    Diminish Discrimination in the Workplace, 49 KAN. L. Rev. 517, 591(2001). See, e.g. U.S.A. v
    Echazabal, 536 US 73, 86 (2002) (direct threat defense must be “based on a reasonable medial
    judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective
    evidence.”) (citing 29 CFR § 1630.2(r) (2001)); See, Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 649
    (1998). See , Sujata S. Menjoge, Testing the Limits of Anti-Discrimination Law: How
    Employers’ Use of Pre-employment Psychological and Personality Tests Can Circumvent Title
    VII and the ADA, 81 N.C.L. Rev., 326, 333 and n. 44 (2003). Hoffman notes that the MMPI also
    requires answers to questions about applicants’ religious beliefs, sexuality, and family life.
    Hoffman, supra note 20 at 540. See, Menjoge, supra note 21 at 332. See, Hoffman, supra note 20
    at 543. See, Hoffman, supra note 20 at 545. See, 42 U.S.C. § 12114 (d). Congress was
    particularly concerned about questions that allowed employers to learn which employees have
    disabilities that are not apparent from observation. It concluded that the only way to protect
    employees with nonvisible disabilities is to prohibit employers from making disability-related
    inquiries and requiring medical examinations that are not job-related and consistent with
    business necessity. See S. Rep. No. 101-116 at 39-40 (1989); H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 75
    (1990) (“An inquiry or medical examination that is not job-related serves no legitimate employer
    purpose, but simply serves to stigmatize the person with a disability.” A person with cancer “may
    object merely to being identified, independent of the consequences [since] being identified as [a
    person with a disability] often carries both blatant and subtle stigma”). See, Roe v. Cheyenne
    Mountain Resort, 124 F.3d 1221, 1229, 7 AD Cas. (BNA) 779, 783 (10th Cir. 1997)(“it makes
    little sense to require an employee to demonstrate that he has a disability to prevent his employer
    from inquiring as to whether or not he has a disability”). Although Roe involved only the issue of
    disability-related inquiries of employees, the same rationale applies to medical examinations of
    employees and to disability-related inquiries and medical examinations of applicants. The ADA’s
    restrictions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations apply to individuals both
    with and without disabilities at all three stages: pre-offer, post-offer, and during employment. See
    also Griffin v. Steeltek, Inc., 160 F.3d 591, 595, 8 AD Cas.1249, 1252 (10th Cir. 1998), cert.
    denied, 119 S.Ct. 1455, 9 AD Cas. 416 (1999) (a job applicant without a disability can sue under
    the ADA regarding medical history questions); Gonzales v. Sandoval County, 2 F.Supp. 2d 1442,
    1445, 8 AD Cas.1337, 1340 (D.N.M. 1998) (plaintiff need not establish disability to state a claim
    for a prohibited inquiry under the ADA); Fredenburg v. Contra Costa County Department of
    Health Services, 172 F.3d 1176, 9 AD Cas. 385 (9th Cir. 1999) (requiring plaintiffs to prove that
    they are persons with disabilities to challenge a medical examination would render §12112(d) (4)
    (A) of the ADA “nugatory”; thus, plaintiffs need not prove that they are qualified individuals
    with a disability to bring claims challenging the scope of medical examinations under the ADA).
    Pleading Number : 2010017635 Submission date : 2010-08-09 01:40:27 Confirmation Number: 79717765 page 35 of 66

  3. The Appellant’s contentions are that the Agency can not have the Appellant submit to a
    forensic Psychiatric Evaluation with Dr. Bober, Dr. Wagner and Dr. Jaffe, and therefore, the
    scheduled forensic Psychiatric Evaluations, which include the scheduled Psychological and
    personality test, known as the Minnesota Multiphastic Personality Inventory (MMPI), of the
    Appellant, were not needed.
    The Agency does not argue, and the record does not indicate, that the Appellant’s position had medical standards or was subject to a medical evaluation program, established under 5 C.F.R. Part 339. Therefore, the Agency had no authority to order a psychological examination under 5 C.F.R. § 339.301(e) (1) (ii).
    Under the ADA, and the EEOC ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE, if a medical examination
    reveals the existence of a disability, an employer must be able to show that the reasons for the
    exclusion are job related and necessary for the conduct of the business. The Agency also must be
    able to show that there was no reasonable accommodation that would have made it possible for
    the Appellant to perform the essential job functions.

    Dr. Jones documentation regarding the Appellant is insufficient because it does not
    specify the existence of an ADA disability and explain the need for reasonable accommodation.
    Dr. Jones testimony regarding the Appellant is insufficient because: (1) the health care
    professional does not have the expertise to give an opinion about the employee’s medical
    condition and the limitations imposed by it; (2) the information does not specify the functional
    limitations due to the disability; and, (3) other factors indicate that the information provided is
    not credible or is fraudulent. On 1/12/2009, Agency Attorney, Anthony Merlino, and Upland Postmaster, Ms. Collins are CC: an e-mail, which states, “The employee will be initially evaluated by Dr. Jones, who will then collaborate with Dr. Saba, and, if necessary, then the employee will be sent for a fitness for duty exam”
    Dr. Jones did not have the Appellant’s authority to conduct a psychological examination of the Appellant.
    Dr. Jones medical report of the Appellant lacks a proper medical opinion. Medical
    opinion is of little probative value where it is equivocal and not supported by medical rationale,
    and its accuracy and completeness could not be tested because the history of the working
    conditions upon which it was predicated were not recited. See, George S. Wolpert, 17 ECAB
    298. Dr. Jones did not attempt to conduct a physical examination of the Appellant. Dr. Jones is
    not qualified to perform a Psychological examination of the Appellant. Appellant contentions are
    that Dr. Jones examination of the Appellant was a pretext in order to have Dr. Bober talk to Dr.
    Jones and get anything between the lines.
    The Agency has declares that the scheduled medical inquiries of the Appellant where
    scheduled only to make inquiries regarding the Appellant, as to whether the Appellant was an
    individual with a disability and as to the nature and severity of his disability.
    The EEOC has previously stated that when an employee provides sufficient evidence of
    the existence of a disability and the need for reasonable accommodation, continued efforts by the
    employer to require that the individual provide more documentation and/or submit to a medical
    examination could be considered retaliation.

  4. Taylor, what kind of evaluation did you take? Please review what we have done relating to about the same issues.
    Please review pertinent part’s from our cases, good luck.
    “With regard to safety requirements that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with
    a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities, an employer must demonstrate that the
    requirement, as applied to the individual, satisfies the “direct threat” standard in § 1630.2(r) in
    order to show that the requirement is job-related and consistent with business necessity.”
    “The employer may not use the employee’s leave as a justification for making far-ranging
    disability-related inquiries or requiring an unrelated medical examination. See, EEOC
    Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of
    Employees, Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), question No. 17.”
    “It is unlawful to ask the Appellant if he is disabled or about the nature or severity of the
    disability. See, the ADA and the EEOC enforcement guidance: DISABILITY RELATED
    “Dr. Saba scheduled the Appellant for forensic Psychiatric Evaluations with Dr. Bober, Dr
    Wagner, and Dr. Jaffe, wherein the signing of the medical release forms where voluntary.
    See, the deposition of Dr. Saba”
    “Dr. Bober stated to Dr. Saba that he was scheduling the Appellant for a “MMPI” test. (Minnesota Multiphastic Personality Inventory)”
    “On March 2, 2009, Dr. Bober stated “I know Randy Jones and he is an excellent MD, so I
    can speak with him to get anything between the lines.”
    “Dr. Jaffe also scheduling the Appellant for a “MMPI” test. (Minnesota Multiphastic
    Personality Inventory). Please review hearing testimony of Dr. Saba”
    “According to Dr. Jaffe’s term and conditions, the examinations and evaluations of
    Appellant would be conclude upon the later: Appellant’s employer’s action in reliance
    upon Dr. Jaffe’s examination and or evaluation, the settlement of any claim that
    Appellant assert for wrongful acts or omissions by Appellant’s employer related to Dr.
    Jaffe’s actions or recommendations or for wrongful termination of employment, or the
    entry of a non-appealable order concerning Appellant’s employment or fitness for duty.”Dr. Jaffe’s medical reports are to be ongoing and developed for the many ongoing litigation’s between the Agency and the Appellant which include two district court complaints, five MSPB’S, and over fifteen EEO’s.
    Dr. Jaffe wanted all of the Appellant’s medical records, (in violation of the ADA).
    Dr. Jaffe charged the Agency for reviewing Appellant’s records and interviewing the
    Appellant for over an hour, on August 17, 2010.
    Dr. Jaffe charged the Agency for consults with Dr. Saba regarding the Appellant.

  5. Doctor Jaffe, you have received a request for a copy of all of my records on September 15, 2009; send to you in order to release all of my records to my attorney, Mr. XXX.
    You have willfully refused to provide a full and complete copy of all of my records as requested; to my attorney Mr. XXX.
    I have made phone calls to you , I have send you fax-mail, I have send you 1st class mail, wherein you have refused to answer to all forms of the abovementioned dialogue.
    Because you are refusing to have any dialogue with me, and are refusing to provide a full and complete copy of the requested records, you have developed a conflict of interest.
    Doctor Jaffe, you should exclude yourself from this matter. You should have recused yourself as prejudice with an interest in this matter as bias; wherein you are sending fax-mail to Dr. Saba (Postal Service, Medical director, for the western reign) regarding me, you are having phone conversations with Dr. Saba regarding me, you are refusing to have any dialogue with me, you are refusing to provide a full and complete copy of all the records requested from you.
    You should voluntarily disqualify yourself in this matter because your actions are not impartially; your actions are subjectively one-sidedly. Just look at the medical forms created by you, for the intentions of obtaining a Forensic Psychiatric Evaluations of me, and for the purpose of obtaining another opinion regarding my current medical condition and possible residuals of my recent condition.

  6. To: Mark E Jaffe M.D.
    9201 Sunset Blvd. Suite 718
    West Hollywood, CA 90069
    Fax Mail 310-356-3277

    Dated: October 2, 2009

    Subject: Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of XXX XXXXX, Postal Employee, scheduled on October 12, 2009.

    Dear Doctor Jaffe,

    The medical forms created by you, for the intentions of obtaining a forensic Psychiatric Evaluations of me, and for the purpose of obtaining another opinion regarding my current medical condition and possible residuals of my recent condition, on October 12, 2009, are improper. By instructing me to sign unnecessary consent forms that are in violation of the ‘The No Fear Act, The Rehabilitation Act, and The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), you are a willing party to this action.

    You may not threaten me with discipline for not signing the unnecessary consent forms that are in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, and ADA. (this also a violation of 45 CFR 160 and 164, violation of the No Fear Act.)
    In her book titled, Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, Margaret Hagen, an experimental psychologist and professor, contends that mental health professionals testifying in court are “witchdoctors” and “psychoexperts’ who mislead judges and juries while chasing the “almighty dollar.” Experts who misrepresent the facts, for whatever reason, may face ethical and legal sanctions.
    Ethical violations in forensic practice can occur for a variety of reasons, only one of which is the fact the psychologists are functioning in a profession with a different cultural ethic. Weissman and DeBow (2003) provide a comprehensive list of impediments to the ethical practice of psychology. This list includes the following obstacles:
    • Not appreciating the different levels for the burden of proof between the disciplines and within the legal system.
    • Failure to understand the unique issues associated with confidentiality and privilege communications in forensic work.
    • Advocacy for a client or advocacy for a particular agenda as opposed to remaining neutral and objective.
    • Failure to appreciate the unique role assessment plays in forensic settings and using inappropriate tests.
    • Inadequate documentation and failing to recognize the need for meticulous notes.
    Forensic psychology, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Forensic psychology is the intersection between psychology and the criminal justice system. It involves understanding criminal law in the relevant jurisdictions in order to be able to interact appropriately with judges, attorneys and other legal professionals. An important aspect of forensic psychology is the ability to testify in court, reformulating psychological findings into the legal language of the courtroom, providing information to legal personnel in a way that can be understood.[1] Further, in order to be a credible witness, for example in the United States, the forensic psychologist must understand the philosophy, rules and standards of the American judicial system. Primary is an understanding of the adversarial system. There are also rules about hearsay evidence and most importantly, the exclusionary rule. Lack of a firm grasp of these procedures will result in the forensic psychologist losing credibility in the courtroom.[2] Questions asked by the court of a forensic psychologist are generally not questions regarding psychology but are legal questions and the response must be in language the court understands.
    Forensic psychologists provide sentencing recommendations, treatment recommendations, and any other information the judge requests, such as information regarding mitigating factors, assessment of future risk, and evaluation of witness credibility. Forensic psychology also involves training and evaluating police or other law enforcement personnel, providing law enforcement with criminal profiles and in other ways working with police departments. Forensic psychologists work both with the Public Defender, the States Attorney, and private attorneys.
    Importance of client’s perspective. A clinician places primary importance on understanding the client’s unique point of view, while the forensic psychologist is interested in accuracy, and the client’s viewpoint is secondary.
    Voluntariness. Usually in a clinical setting a psychologist is dealing with a voluntary client. A forensic psychologist evaluates clients by order of a judge or at the behest of an attorney. The objectives of a forensic examination are confined by the applicable statutes or common law elements that pertain to the legal issue in question. Forensic psychologists perform a wide range of tasks within the criminal justice system. By far the largest is that of preparing for and providing testimony in the court room. Evaluating the client, preparing for testimony, and the testimony itself require the forensic psychologist to have a firm grasp of the law and the legal situation at issue in the courtroom, using the Crime Classification Manual and other sources.[11][12] This knowledge must be integrated with the psychological information obtained from testing, psychological and mental status exams, and appropriate assessment of background materials, such as police reports, prior psychiatric or psychological evaluations, medical records and other available pertinent information.[5] Forensic psychologists are frequently asked to make an assessment of an individual’s dangerousness or risk of re-offending. They may provide information and recommendations necessary for sentencing purposes, grants of probation, and the formulation of conditions of parole, which often involves an assessment of the offender’s ability to be rehabilitated. They are also asked questions of witness credibility and malingering.[13] Occasionally, they may also provide criminal profiles to law enforcement.
    The ethical standards for a forensic psychologist differ from those of a clinical psychologist or other practicing psychologist because the forensic psychologist is not an advocate for the patient and nothing the patient says is guaranteed to be kept confidential. This makes evaluation of the patient difficult, as the forensic psychologist needs and wants to obtain certain information while it is often not in the patient’s best interest to provide it. The patient has no control over how that information is used.[26] Despite the signing of a waiver of confidentiality, most clients do not realize the nature of the evaluative situation.[7] Furthermore, the interview techniques differ from those typical of a clinical psychologist and require an understanding of the criminal mind and criminal and violent behavior.[27]

  7. Perfect example of someone who doesn’t really want to work, but wants to keep the door open just in case he changes his mind. We got some scammers where I work doing the same thing, haven’t been to work in years, could have got a disability retirement due to their conditions, but want to play the system, and maybe if they can get a bleeding heart arbitrator to give them a $300,000 EEO settlement, that’s like winning the lottery, so why not give it a try before putting in the retirement papers, right?

    Sorry guy, when you are hired to do a job, you need to suck it up, be a man, put up with the BS like we all do, bust your hump and get a little self respect for a job well done. We have no respect for people like this dude. I bet everyone in his office knows he is a scammer too.

  8. In September 2007, the Service sent Taylor another letter asking him to report or furnish medical documenta-tion, at the risk of losing approved leave. Taylor re-sponded in writing, saying that his medical condition had not changed since July 2007, but without providing evi-dence

    To me this sentence says it all.Its that old attitude that I will do what I want and you can’t fire me. Well things have change and this is one of those people unwilling to except it. It use to be and for the most part still is hard to fire an employee but when you refuse to provide what was ask, you bring this on yourself.
    Times are a changing!

  9. We all have stress, however most people realize they still need to go to work and make a living to support themselves and their families. Everyone’s going soft these days and using any excuse they can to get out of working, yet they still want all the benefits of those that do work, meaning actually come to work and do the job. I don’t feel sorry for anyone who tries to take the easy way out then gets burned in the end. Just like Kathy said theres a time to fight the fight then there’s a time to tell the employee they’re wrong, some unions actually do that, however they still must defend them.

  10. to x-steward
    good luck!!!!!
    fire his dumb ass and be done with it there are reason to fight for someone and there are reasons not to fight for someone?
    and this guy is full of it i mean do you think anyone should just be able to say i,m to stressed to work and not have medical proof of that?
    my mothers dying of cancer ,my husband has congestive heart failure and i,m a diabetic and i go to work every damn day

  11. i dont understand stress, whomo is not stressed with the post office, but some of us take our job serious and also need the money 2 live on.

  12. Has Taylor ever heard of “federal employee disability retirement?” He now has only one year to file for one. At this point, he will need an attorney. Some advertise on this website. Good luck!

Comments are closed.