Posted on August 19, 2009 by federallawyer
Attorneys argue “by analogy” all of the time; cases and decisions from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and language from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, provide the fertile fodder for such argumentation. Thus, such issues [...]
Filed under: Clarifications of Laws or Rules, Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted, OPM Disability Actors - The Attorney, OPM Disability Actors - The MSPB Administrative Judge, The Job of a Federal Disability Attorney | Tagged: a well-prepared opm disability case, an overall winning approach to the whole opm disability process, argument by analogy, Bruner Presumption, building a strong disability retirement case, building your fers disability foundations over rock, court case decisions opm disability, decisions by the federal circuit court of appeals, disability retirement benefits for air traffic controllers, disability retirement for federal employees, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, federal court decisions in OPM disability cases, federal disability law and legal argumentation, federal disability retirement mspb decisions, federal medical retirement for usaid workers, how to cite a published federal disability case, how to win an OPM disability case, interpretation of court decisions about opm disability, is your case similar to other opm disability court decisions?, legal & foundational argument, legal application of past court opinions, legal argument to support your opm medical incapacity case, legal arguments for opm disability rights, medical retirement for federal employees in south dakota, Merit Systems Protection Board, opm case-law decisions, opm decisions disability, OPM disability application tips, owcp medical retirement, postal service disability retirement, precedent and analogy in opm law legal reasoning, preparing an OPM disability application for the long term, preparing for a long-term federal disability case, resources for injured federal workers, taking a long-term perspective during the filing, the attorney's methodology, the scrutiny of the administrative law judge, thinking mspb while filing a postal retirement application, tips for us government employees on disability retirement, tips on how to handle the opm disability application, using precedents in legal arguments, USPS disability retirement, usps medical disability, why case citations are important | Leave a Comment »
Posted on August 16, 2008 by federallawyer
Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 26, 2007, has an interesting statement from the deciding Judge, which can be used as “firepower” for anyone who is attempting to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits (note of caution: for lay non-attorneys, be careful in how you use [...]
Filed under: Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM, Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted, Important Cases, Legal Updates and/or the Current Process Waiting Time | Tagged: back pain and radiating pain along legs, case law citation in federal disabilities cases, disability laws for postal workers, disability retirement for postal clerks, disability retirement opm, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, federal court decisions in OPM disability cases, federal employee disability compensation, federal workers disability, FERS disability lawyer, legal services for federal employees, letter carriers disability retirement, Massachusetts OPM disability retirement, medical benefits for nsf employees, medical evidence, medical reports in the OPM disability retirement application, MSPB disability attorney, nationwide representation of federal employees, objective and subjective medical evidence, objective medical evidence for federal disability cases, office of personnel management retirement, one important legal interpretation of the opm's vanieken case, OPM decision making is not 100% rational or objective, OPM disability attorney, OPM Federal Government Disability Decisions, OPM Reconsideration Stage, pennsylvania opm disability retirement, physical inability removal, postal workers owcp rights attorney, representing federal employees from any us government agency, representing federal employees in and outside the country, statutes and regulations governing disability retirement law, the non-attorney opm representative, the opm must evaluate medical documentation, the Vanieken case, the Vanieken-Ryals case, Vanieken-Ryals v. Office of Personnel Management, when "objective medical evidence" is not necessary, when non-attorneys attempt to use case law, when the opm focuses on documentation you didn't submit, workers comp distribution clerks | Leave a Comment »
Posted on August 13, 2008 by federallawyer
Remember that the applicant who is requesting disability retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management always has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is entitled and eligible for disability retirement benefits. Even if the Agency proposes and effectuates a removal based upon one’s medical inability to [...]
Filed under: Burden of Proof, Clarifications of Laws or Rules, Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted, OPM Disability Actors - The Applicant | Tagged: Bruner Presumption, bruner presumption in opm disability and its limitations, building a strong disability retirement case, Burden of Production, Burden of Proof, case law citation in federal disabilities cases, civil service workman's comp, condition that prevents to perform the essential functions, disability retirement, disability retirement facts, do I have a won case if I get terminated due to medical reasons?, federal disability facts, federal disability retirement lawyer, FERS disability retirement, fers disability retirement and the burden of proof concept, ill federal employee, in bruner the applicant must still submit sufficient evidence, legal application of past court opinions, legal representation for injured federal workers, limited burden of proof shift over to OPM, looking forward toward federal dr, medical evidence, medical retirement from federal service, nationwide representation of federal employees, OPM disability retirement, OWCP disability, Postal disability retirement, Postal Service disability, preponderance of the evidence documents, representing federal employees in and outside the country, separated from service, statutory requirements in OPM disability law, the Bruner Presumption and the burden of proof, USPS disability retirement, vermont opm medical disability retirement | Leave a Comment »
Posted on July 27, 2008 by federallawyer
In order for an SSA approval to have an impact upon a Federal disability retirement application, the Social Security Administration’s decision letter granting benefits must provide a detailed explanation as to the basis for the approval, delineating the medical basis, the medical conditions upon which the decision was made, etc. Thereafter, the applicant can submit [...]
Filed under: Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM, Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted, Important Cases, Legal Updates and/or the Current Process Waiting Time, OPM Disability & SSA Social Security Disability Benefits | Tagged: additional evidence to sustain your fers disability claim, Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM, argument by analogy, attorney for US government employees, being careful with the medical documentation you submit to opm, case law citation in federal disabilities cases, civil service disability, civil service disability retirement, CSRS disability lawyer, disability retirement fers, disability retirement for federal employees, disability retirement laws under FERS & CSRS, documents you should not always submit to the opm, emphasizing quality in submitting opm medical records, federal disability law, federal employee turning over medical evidence to the opm, federal workers disability, FERS disability attorney, FERS disability lawyer, law firm for federal disability retirement, medical condition, medical evidence, medical evidence submitted to the opm for disability purposes, nationwide representation of federal employees, nexus between medical disability and job performance, OPM disability application tips, opm disability law firm, OPM disability lawyer, opm medical documents, opm supportive medical documentation, OPM's methodology, postal workers owcp rights attorney, pragmatic methodology, precedent and analogy in opm law legal reasoning, Social Security and OPM disability relationship, statutory requirements in OPM disability law, supporting substantial medical evidence to OPM, the applicant's methodology, the attorney's methodology, the opm must consider a ssa's decision if submitted, Trevan v. Office of Personnel Management, usps medical retirement, when to use a SSA disability decision, wyoming opm federal disability retirement | Leave a Comment »
Posted on July 11, 2008 by federallawyer
In fighting to prove one’s eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, a recurring argument which the Office of Personnel Management often alleges is that an applicant failed to follow the treatment recommendations of the treating doctor.
Such an argument can prove to be fatal to an applicant’s case, but it is good to know the parameters [...]
Filed under: Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted, Reasonable Medical Treatment and Compliance Issues | Tagged: avoid giving the opm an excuse or "basis" for denial, civil service disability, disability retirement consequences of self-treatment, disability retirement opm, federal employee disability doctor, if your medical treatment is "reasonable" or not, importance of following up medical disability treatment, invasive surgery, medical and surgical treatments in opm disability decisions, medical condition, medication treatment on federal disability retirement cases, Merit Systems Protection Board and OPM disability, minimally invasive spine surgery, misinterpretation or misapplication of OPM disability law, mistakes that can cost you an opm disability denial, OPM disability appeal to the MSPB, OPM disability application tips and strategies, OPM medical retirement, OPM's methodology, OWCP medical treatment, physician's statements in an OPM disability case, Postal disability retirement, pragmatic methodology, prescribed medication regimen and opm disability, reasonable medical determination, statutory requirements in OPM disability law, Terry Davis v. the Office of Personnel Management, what's reasonable treatment, why is so important to take all your drugs in opm disability?, your treating doctors | Leave a Comment »
Posted on June 4, 2008 by federallawyer
Is it necessary for a Federal Disability Retirement Applicant to cite relevant case-laws and statutory authority when filing for disability retirement? Or, should the medical evidence be sufficient? Certainly, there is no statutory requirement that “the law” be referenced when filing for disability retirement. And, further, it is normally not a good idea for a [...]
Filed under: Clarifications of Laws or Rules, Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted, OPM Disability Actors - The Applicant, OPM Disability Process - 1st Stage: OPM Disability Application | Tagged: Administrative Law, applicable opm disability laws in each claim, applicant's statement of disability, case law citation in federal disabilities cases, civil service disability retirement, CSRS disability retirement, federal disability attorney's advice, federal disability law, federal disability retirement attorney, federal disability retirement lawyer, federal employee attorney, FERS disability attorney, FERS disability retirement, fers disability retirement eligibility issues, fers disability tips for the layman, FERS medical retirement, Initial Stage of the OPM disability process, is there any statutory requirements to cite case-laws?, lawyer role in federal disability cases, legal analysis of opm disability rulings, misinterpretation or misapplication of OPM disability law, nationwide representation of federal employees, opm case-law decisions, OPM clerks, opm disability case laws, OPM disability retirement, opm fers disability retirement in west virginia, OPM First Stage Disability Application, OPM Initial Stage, opm medical disability, OPM Representative, opm retirement eligibility process, Postal Service employee advocate, statutory criteria for eligibility for disability, statutory requirements in OPM disability law, strong and irrefutable medical evidence, the non-lawyers' guide to opm disability law, the opm benefits specialist, tips on how to handle the opm disability application, USPS disability retirement, when the applicant doesn't have opm disability legal counseling, when the opm representative reviews your disability application | Leave a Comment »
Posted on May 16, 2008 by federallawyer
If an individual is successful in persuading the Agency to remove him or her for his/her medical inability to perform the job, then the entitlement to what is coined as the “Bruner Presumption” is obtained. This is a great advantage, but one which is often misunderstood.
Remember that, under Bruner v. Office of Personnel Management, 996 [...]
Filed under: Burden of Proof, Clarifications of Laws or Rules, Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted, Important Cases, Legal Updates and/or the Current Process Waiting Time, OPM Disability Actors - The Applicant | Tagged: Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM, applying for federal disability, attaining an amicable separation, Bruner Presumption, Burden of Production, Burden of Proof, document preparation and opm disability law, essential elements of jobs, federal court decisions in OPM disability cases, federal disability attorney, federal disability retirement attorney, federal disability retirement lawyer, in bruner the applicant must still submit sufficient evidence, limited burden of proof shift over to OPM, more than enough medical documentation, opm case-law decisions, Postal disability, Postal disability retirement, preponderance of the evidence documents, separated because of the employee's inability to work, separated from service, the Bruner Presumption and the burden of proof, usps separation | Leave a Comment »
Posted on May 3, 2008 by federallawyer
In moderating the Martindale-Hubbell Message Board for Federal Disability Retirement Issues, two areas of law need clarification for those out there contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS: First, the issue of whether a potential applicant needs to wait to be separated from Federal Service in order to obtain the “Bruner Presumption“, [...]
Filed under: Clarifications of Laws or Rules, Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted, LWOP and Sick Leave in OPM Disability, OPM Medical Questionnaire | Tagged: 1-year OPM disability rule, Bruner Presumption, Bruner v. Office of Personnel Management, CSRS disability retirement, disability retirement for federal employees, earned income concept in OPM disability, federal disability law blog, federal employees disability benefits, federal non disciplinary actions, fers disability retirement law firm, FERS medical retirement, legal representation for injured federal workers, long lwop sick leave for stress, lwop, LWOP in federal disability retirement, one year separated from service opm rule, one-year statutory timeframe, OPM disability retirement, OPM disability Statute of Limitations, Post Office disability, postal service disability retirement, resources for injured federal workers, separated from service, sick leave in OPM disability, some confusion about the opm disability retirement, supportive doctor needed a opm disability retirement claim, the 60% and 40% of income concepts in opm disability, The 80% OPM Disability Rule, The Statute of Limitations, USPS Disability, usps lwop, when should I file for federal disability retirement?, when the federal government doesn't accommodate you, when to apply for opm fers disability retirement | Leave a Comment »
