Modern philosophy is often considered to have begun with the French philosopher, Descartes; this is perhaps unfortunate, for the resulting inward navel gazing which was precipitated and the subsequent conceptual bifurcation between mind and body, for which we must contend with and pay the price, to this day.
For the longest time, of course, there was a suspicion that psychiatric conditions were somehow less viable and more difficult to prove; this is perhaps as a result of a misconception and misunderstanding of that proof which constitutes “objective” data as opposed to “subjective” interpretations of any factual analysis.
In Federal Disability Retirement cases, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board has steadfastly rejected any notions of subjective/objective differentiation, especially when it comes to psychiatric medical conditions. Fortunately for the Federal and Postal Worker who suffers from medical conditions such that the medical disability prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, the MSPB has repeatedly rejected OPM’s claim that certain medical evidence (clinical examinations and encounters with a psychiatrist, for instance) is merely “subjective”, as opposed to what they deem to be considered “objective” medical evidence.
Whether anyone at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is aware of Descartes and the French philosopher’s profound influence upon the mind/body bifurcation is a matter of factual irrelevance; the important historical point to be recognized is the trickling down impact from theoretical discourses in academia, to the pragmatic application of concepts in bureaucratic administrative functions.
Descartes lives, and the echoes of his philosophical influence resounds and reverberates down into the hallways of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in the daily reviews of Federal Disability Retirement applications.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Mental/Nervous Condition | Tagged: a proven philosofical approach to federal disability retirement, addressing logical and philosophical issues in the long federal disability process, are psychiatric conditions legitimate to retire under fers?, barriers of credibility and legal subjectivity in your opm disability application, Cartesian dualism, civil service disability, CSRS disability retirement, difficulty in mental conditions postal disability, disabling mental nervous conditions, dualism in philosophical terms, fers disability for mental problems is possible if you avoid some pitfalls, FERS disability retirement, form 3971 sick leave long term disability, is it possible for a postal worker with a psychiatric condition qualify for disability?, job evaluation for federal employees with mental and nervous problems, lawyers as philosophers, long lwop and sick leave for nervous or mental conditions in the us postal service, looking at ''objective truth" through the eyes of the opm during the fers disability process, nationwide representation of federal employees, no objective evidence absolutely necessary for some medical conditions, objective and subjective factors in your federal disability claim, objective medical evidence for federal disability cases, objectivity and legal arguments in a fers disability claim, OPM disability retirement, opm disability retirement and the subjectivity of mental conditions, OPM psychiatric and physical conditions, philosophical pragmatism to the domain of opm disability law, postal service disability retirement, postal workers disability psychiatric disability in OPM disability retirement, pragmatic methodology, pragmatic philosophical principles and opm disability retirement practice, pragmatism in federal disability law, psychiatric conditions in disability retirement fers & owcp, psychiatry and opm disability retirement, René Descartes, representing federal employees from any us government agency, sick leave on ps form 3971 for mental conditions, sick leave or disability retirement for employee incapacitation, the "objective" review of my fers disability application, the cartesian mind/body dualism in federal disability retirement, the mind/body bifurcation problem in federal disability retirement reviews, the quantity and quality controls of a subjective assessment to determine if a particular package of medical documentation is sufficient to meet the opm-imposed higher legal standard of review, the value of applying philosophical principles into law practice, the way to prove a psychiatric condition in a federal disability retirement case, trying to be objective in a matter considered to be mostly subjective by the office of personnel management, USPS disability retirement, western philosophy and persuasive legal arguments in an opm disability retirement claims, when "objective medical evidence" is not necessary, when the opm refuses to consider ''subjective'' evidence, when there is no way to get objective medical evidence the using of established medical diagnostic criteria may be useful, why psychiatric conditions can be sometimes more difficult to prove in the eyes of the office of personnel management? | Leave a comment »