Hume’s exposition on causality is both interesting and instructive in terms of looking at the validity of an argument. In this instance, we are obviously making an analogy with how the Office of Personnel Management, and to a larger degree, people in general who make a causal argument and declare that it is a ‘valid’ argument. David Hume’s argument on causality essentially states that there is nothing in the world other than two independent events (which we merely deem as ’cause’ and ‘effect’), which we repetitively witness. However, because there is no ‘meta-factor’ beyond the independent events, what he terms as a ‘necessary connection’, therefore there is no certainty beyond a repetition of events. Thus, Hume argues that we actually never see anything ‘new’ — no ‘necessary connection’ between cause and effect, in the 100th time we observe an event, any more than the first time.
This is, indeed, analogous to how the Office of Personnel Management views rendering a denial in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS. Look at the lack of logical argumentation in an OPM denial. It is a series of independent events, delineated and categorized in some semblance of chronological order (perhaps the order that the OPM Representative read the medical documentation): Dr X says this; Dr. Y says that; then the effect: “The medical evidence fails to meet the criteria for eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement.” Like Hume’s description of the world, there lacks a ‘meta-factor’. Whether the stated causes have any connection (see the analogy? It is like Hume’s reference to “necessary connection”) to the “effect” is entirely irrelevant. Events do not need to justify the decision. It is acceptable to merely refer to medical documents and then come to a conclusion, without any need to justify the validity of an argument. But, then, that seems to be how most people in the general population formulate an argument these days — based upon how one “feels”.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Reflections of an OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer | Tagged: analyzing the opm denial letter, baseless denials by the opm reps, civil service disability, Common OPM Excuses for Federal Disability Denials, criteria for medical retirement, criteria of denial instead of criteria of disability in opm disability, criterias for disability retirement opm, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, David Hume, deficiencies of an OPM disability denial, disability retirement at the USPS, disability retirement for federal employees, examining the basis for the denial, excuses the opm disability specialist uses to deny disability benefits, federal disability attorney, federal disability law blog, federal workers disability criteria, FERS disability lawyer, FERS disability retirement, filing for OPM disability retirement, groundless reason for disability application denial, how much medical evidence I need to qualify for fers disability?, how to evaluate a denial of benefits from the opm, hume's problems of causation and causal truths, if the opm clerks pre-determines your claim denial, lack of objective medical evidence used to deny postal disability, legal representation for injured federal workers, making sense out of an opm disability retirement denial, medical evidence submitted to the opm for disability purposes, meeting the criteria of eligibility for csrs disability retirement, misstatements as basis for denial, nationwide representation of federal employees, opm and other disability programs and their eligibility criteria, OPM disability attorney, opm disability denial - no enough medical evidence?, OPM disability retirement, OPM First Stage Disability Application, OPM unreasonable denial, Postal disability retirement, postal service disability retirement, quoting common excuses the opm uses to justify denial of disability benefits, representing federal employees from any us government agency, representing federal employees in and outside the country, statutory criteria for eligibility for disability, the dreaded denial letter, USPS Disability, USPS disability retirement, when the OPM rejects medical evidence |
Leave a Reply