Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pension staff to tighten 'fit‑for‑duty' medical form; board committee to review revised form before board approval
Summary
Lexington City pension staff told the subcommittee they will revise the form used to document medical ‘fit for duty’ determinations for disability retirement to require clearer physician identification and to return forms that are internally inconsistent; staff will bring a revised form to the subcommittee, then the full board, for approval.
Pension staff told the Lexington City Pension Board subcommittee they will tighten the city’s fit‑for‑duty medical form used in disability retirement reviews and bring a revised version back for committee and board approval.
Staff members and committee members described recurring problems with physician forms: some submissions had every capacity marked “unable” or every capacity marked “able,” and many physician signatures were illegible or lacked a printed name and contact information. Staff said those errors create heavy administrative burdens and can delay disability determinations.
During the discussion staff proposed several practical changes and received the committee’s agreement in principle. The agreed changes include: adding a printed physician name and contact information (phone or office), removing or clarifying confusing date fields that may be misinterpreted, rejecting and returning forms that are internally inconsistent (for example, every capability box marked “unable” when evidence suggests otherwise) and requiring resubmission. Staff also said that if an applicant requests material additions to a previously submitted medical record (for example, adding an additional body part) the case should be re‑evaluated and typically require a new independent medical evaluation with a different provider.
Why it matters: Committee members said inaccurate or incomplete physician forms have become common, require staff time to correct and risk undermining confidence in the disability process if left unchecked. As one staff member put it, “We’re not gonna accept it that way” when forms are clearly incorrect; the committee agreed staff should return improperly completed forms to applicants and ask for corrected submissions.
Next steps: Staff will revise the fit‑for‑duty form to include a printed physician name and contact information and will remove or reword the confusing date field. The revised form will be presented to the subcommittee for review at the next meeting and then submitted to the full pension board for formal approval. Staff said they will also prepare brief guidance for applicants and treating physicians describing acceptable submission format (chronological order, single‑side pages, no blank pages) to reduce repetitive resubmissions and processing delays.
Ending
Staff will bring a revised fit‑for‑duty form and a short cover page/explanatory note to the next subcommittee meeting; the subcommittee will review and, if satisfied, forward the form to the pension board for approval.
