In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, the reason why it is important to understand, reflect upon, and have a practical knowledge of the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement issues — both in terms of statutes which govern and dictate the criteria for eligibility of Federal Disability Retirement benefits; the regulations which are propounded by the Office of Personnel Management; and the case laws which are administrative judicial opinions handed down (from the Merit Systems Protection Board, to the Full Board of the Merit Systems Protection Board; to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, etc.) — is that there is always a “trickle down” aspect to the evolving laws in any system of laws.
Thus, the opinions handed down by Administrative Judges at the Merit Systems Protection Board, as well as by Judges of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, are dictates and interpretation of statutory authority which are to be “followed” by the Federal Agency which is empowered to administer the decision-making process of Federal Disability Retirement benefits.
Part of that application of law, for instance, is the “standard of proof” which must be applied, and in the case of all Federal Disability Retirement applications, the standard of proof to be applied is the “Preponderance of the Evidence” standard. But what does that standard mean? While entirely subjective at worst, and somewhat confusing at best, the individual words which make up the conceptual entirety provides some inkling of what must be understood.
Whether qualitatively or quantitatively, one must have a showing of “preponderance” — of more, better, or of greater persuasive effect than not. Thus, whether by sheer volume of the evidence presented, or in the quality of the presentation, the persuasive impact must be accepted as more likely than not, by the Office of Personnel Management or, if appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, then by the Administrative Judge.
It is important to not only apply a standard, but to have an understanding of the standard. For, only by understanding can one then determine its proper application.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Burden of Proof | Tagged: a good measure of credible proof to show you are disabled under fers/csrs laws, additional evidence to sustain your fers disability claim, applicable opm disability laws in each claim, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, disability laws for postal workers, disability retirement and opm standard of review, disability retirement laws under FERS & CSRS, evidentiary weight to show you qualify for opm disability retirement, Federal Disability, federal disability law blog, federal disability retirement, FERS disability retirement, laws governing federal employees disability law, opm disability case laws, OPM disability retirement, owcp disability retirement, Postal disability, postal service disability retirement, preponderance of the evidence documents, representing federal employees from any us government agency, standard of proof concept in federal disability retirement, supporting substantial medical evidence to OPM, the standard of proof, USPS disability retirement, weight of evidence fers disability retirement, weight of evidence legal definition in federal employee disability retirement, what "standard of proof" applies to fers disability retirement |
Leave a Reply