He who dictates the law, controls the conditions and criteria which govern a process. Whether such dictation is an accurate reflection of the actual substance of the law, of course, is another matter.
Thus, when the Office of Personnel Management applies their 7-part criteria, they purportedly and in declarative form assert that it is based upon the substantive law which is extrapolated from the statutory authority which underlies Federal Disability Retirement laws, statutes, regulations, and expansive case-law as handed down from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board decisions and opinions rendered by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals cases.
Merely asserting that a given set of legal criteria has been applied, does not constitute a verification of the proper interpretation of what the law means. Proper interpretation requires legal analysis, an understanding of the context of how the law was applied, in what fact-scenarios the law was cited, and an argument as to whether it applies in one’s own set of factual circumstances.
Indeed, often the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will describe a linear state of a Federal or Postal employee’s set of medical reports, conditions, etc., then merely declare that the legal criteria was applied, then (without any explanatory nexus between the facts and the conclusion) make a decision stating that the medical conditions “did not satisfy the legal requirements” — without any bridging explanation as to why such a statement should be accepted as true.
Having the authority to dictate the law is one thing; such authority does not mean that one is right, or that such authority grants the agency any great insight into proper legal reasoning. Fortunately, there are appellate procedures, such as the next step in the process — the Second Stage of the process (Reconsideration Stage), and beyond, to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) | Tagged: argumentation and interpretation in opm disability law, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, deficiencies of an OPM disability denial, essential elements of jobs, Federal Disability, federal disability law blog, federal disability retirement, FERS disability retirement, if the opm specialist misinterprets opm disability law, interpretation of federal disability law, law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america, legal help after first application denial, legal interpretation of opm medical retirement law, misinterpretation or misapplication of OPM disability law, nationwide representation of federal employees, opm denial letter interpretation, OPM disability retirement, OPM unreasonable denial, opm's 7-part criteria to approve disability claims, opm's misinterpretation of the legal standard used to approve fers disability retirement, owcp disability retirement, Postal disability, postal service disability retirement, representing federal employees from any us government agency, the balance of power during the federal disability process, the simplistic opm's criteria to approve or deny federal disability applications, the theory and practice of opm disability statutory interpretation, using appellate procedures when your fers disability claim is denied by the opm, usps denial of injury compensation, USPS disability retirement, what to do when the postal service denies owcp benefits, when the opm applies its seven part criteria to deny your disability application, when the opm interpretes disability statutes in its own way, when the opm misinterprets federal disability law in your own disability claim |
Leave a Reply