What does it mean to “apply the law”? Does mere mention of the fact — often, at the end of a lengthy paragraph, almost as an afterthought and merely an appendage to satisfy the criteria of “consideration of the law” — satisfy the requirement?
Does a jury who collectively convicts a defendant because they didn’t like the way he looks, satisfy the obligation of considering “reasonable doubt” if, just before agreeing to render the verdict of “guilty”, everyone in the room nods the consent that there is “no reasonable doubt to consider”?
Or, must a jury deliberate upon the issue and definition of reasonable doubt for a lengthy period of time in order to “appear” that they have considered the law’s mandate in a serious fashion, so that each juror can say, “Yes, we gave the criterion of ‘reasonable doubt’ due seriousness, and concluded that none of us had any reasonable doubt to prevent such a conviction”?
In analogous form, does the U.S. Office of Personnel Management satisfy the law’s mandate if they merely mention the multitude of case-law requirements, or if not even mentioning them, to “refer” to the variegated issues?
In this writer’s opinion, the Law’s Mandate requires more, and it is the job of the attorney to point out what constitutes and satisfies the law’s mandate, and to force OPM to do their job properly. If you are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS, contact a retirement lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and make sure that the Law’s Mandate is fully satisfied.
Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.