Law is an imperfect science; indeed, one could dispute the ascribing of law as a “science” at all, except in a generic, loose sense of the word. Like the sciences, it is an observation and gathering of empirical evidence (“just the facts, please’); like science, it is an application of a hypothesis (proposing an applicable theory of law upon the gathered facts); and like science, the results of applying the hypothetical model upon the empirical evidence must take into account the factors of error, the possibilities of various elements which may impact upon a perfect study (i.e., the personalities and quirks of a jury or a judge, for example). But that is where the resemblance between science and law end.
More often than not, the practice of law is nothing more than what Hume’s famous argument concerning causality entails: repetitive observation of an event does not necessarily result in the same effect the next time around; it is merely experience which guides the observer to predictably conclude certain end-results. To that extent, administrative law, and specifically Federal Disability Retirement law for Federal employees under FERS or CSRS is no different. Law, as engaged in actively by an attorney of law, is the acute observation of the facts, the application of the proper hypothetical model, and the combining of both — with the exception of taking into account one’s experience, the experience of past cases, and making discretionary decisions based upon all of the facts and circumstances.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Reflections of an OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer | Tagged: administrative law theory and practice, civil service disability, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, David Hume, Department of Defense Federal Disability Legal Services, Department of the Interior (DOI) Federal Disability Program, Disability Retirement for employees at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Disability Retirement for Veterans Administration (VA) employees, discretionary decisions based on experience and knowledge of opm disability law, discretionary decisions based on facts and circumstances of your specific case too, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Disability Retirement, empirical evidence on opm disability claims, experienced attorney in opm disability law will help getting positive end-results, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employees medical retirement, federal disability law as a science, federal disability lawsuits, focusing on medical substantive issues not emotional problems, gathering medical documentation for an incapacitated federal employee, hume's problems of causation and causal truths, if the exact opm claim was reviewed by different opm disability specialists...., importance of using legal argumentation in your fers disability claim, medical incapacitation at the federal agency, Medical Retirement for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) employees, Medical Retirement for Social Security Administration (SSA) employees, nationwide representation of federal employees, opm disability law: theory and practice, OPM disability lawyer, opm disability retirement rules, questions about discretionary decision-making in a specific claim, quoting the most appropriate opm case laws to your specific disability claim, repetitive legal tests to opm disability law will not always yield the same results, representing federal employees from any us government agency, Retirement for Medical Incapacitation for US Justice Department employees, selecting only the best medical documentation for the fers claim, statutory requirements in OPM disability law, studying your opm claim and using appropriate legal arguments, testing opm disability law theory in every case, the science of the legal method as applied to opm disability cases, the theory of opm disability law, The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Federal Disability Program, theory and practice in opm disability law, United States Border Patrol disability retirement, USPS disability retirement |
Leave a Reply