Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: The Necessity of the Legal Argument

Disparate facts, placed in the same vicinity, aggregated in order to formulate a composite of conceptual constructs, can provide to the recipient information concerning a specific issue, resolution of a problem, perspective on a viewpoint, etc.  However, when a particular issue is governed by statutory authority, history of case-law interpretation, and multiple sets of regulatory issuances from a Federal Agency — and, further, where it involves an application to prove eligibility, as opposed to merely filling out a form to ascertain entitlement — in such an instance, it is necessary to argue “the law” , as opposed to merely reciting a set of “facts”.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is sometimes questionable as to the value of making complex legal arguments, especially at the initial stage of the process, and sometimes at the Second, or “Reconsideration” Stage of the process.  But that is the point, isn’t it — that it is a “process“, as opposed to a singular filing event?  For a process necessarily involves preparation and formulation not only for the “present”, momentary event; rather, it entails and encapsulates potential future considerations.

OPM cites “the law” right back at you in a denial letter; the Federal or Postal employee must be able to adequately respond by understanding, applying, rebutting and answering with the very laws which are referred to, implied by, or otherwise referenced in OPM’s denial.  Furthermore, preemptive recitation and reference to laws governing specific issues is always an effective methodology of arguing a case.  Remember:  Facts alone only arbitrarily provide information; information recited without context fails to make a case; it is through logical argumentation that the persuasiveness of a set of facts can be effectively conveyed in order to win a Federal Disability Retirement case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire