Giving a “reason” is the basis of rationality. In some sense, such a statement is merely a tautology, a redundancy in propositional logic (as pointed out by Wittgenstein), or what Kant had termed as an analytic a priori statement, where the subject (“reason”) is essentially identical to the object (“rationality”) in definitional terms. But it is precisely the providing of a reason which forms the proper basis for proceeding in a rational manner.
Thus, if a X states that it will rain today, the follow-up query might be: “Why do you believe that?” If X answers, “Because I say so,” such a “reason” would not be an acceptable basis to act upon, precisely because it is neither a valid reason nor a basis of rationality. Contrast that to the following: “Because the national weather service, after an extensive study of the weather patterns for the past two weeks, has concluded that there is a 97% chance of rain today.” Now, one may argue that predictions concerning the weather are notoriously unreliable to begin with; but nevertheless, the latter forms a basis for proceeding in a rational manner, while the former gives us no such foundation.
Similarly, in all sectors of one’s life, one has an expectation of giving and receiving “reasons” for which to act upon. In a Federal Disability Retirement case, we are expected to provide reasons for why a Federal or Postal employee is “eligible” for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Conversely, it is a “reasonable” expectation to receive a “reason” when a Federal Disability Retirement application is denied at any stage of the process. Templates used by OPM will often only present the most superficial of reasons; and some reasonings as proposed by OPM may be self-contradictory.
In the end, whatever the reasons given, the Federal or Postal disability retirement applicant must respond with reasons why OPM is wrong, or provide a rational basis for a difference of opinions. But that is another matter for a different blog altogether — the very issue of “opinions” and what should be the foundation of a valid one. For, after all, we each of us possess them, and a scant few make much of a difference.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: When the OPM Application Is Denied | Tagged: a few useful assumptions and realistic expectations before you take the federal disability retirement train, a rational response to an unreasonable letter of denial opm benefits, applying for federal disability, civil service disability retirement, don't expect a perfect review of your disability retirement case under fers, expecting a clear explanation why your fers disability was not approved, expecting a rational perspective in the evaluation of your fers disability benefits application, federal disability attorney, FERS Disability, fers disability retirement and big expectations, great expectations -- or at least reasonable expectations from the opm, legal representation for injured federal workers, OPM unreasonable denial, opm's denial of disability benefits can have some rational basis after all, opm's denial of disability benefits may be rational -- even if you disagree with their opinions, opm's rational basis for its denial of disability benefits, owcp disability retirement, postal service disability retirement, preparing well your opm disability claim and having realistic expectations, realistic expectations about it times it may take to get your opm disability retirement application approved, representing federal employees from any us government agency, the dreaded denial letter, the rationality behind a denial of federal disability retirement benefits, the reality versus the expectation of the opm disability process, the reasonable expectation one should have from an opm denial letter, the reasonable expectation to receive a rational explanation when a federal disability retirement application is denied, waiting for the unexpected during the opm disability process, what an opm disability applicant should expect from a review of his or her claim, what is next after submitting a federal disability retirement application to the opm, what to expect from the opm when you submit that disability claim, when the opm acts irrationally and denies disability, working around an opm denial letter | Leave a comment »
Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Responding to Stupidity
Sometimes, one’s initial reaction in a situation — professional setting, social discourse, event gathering, etc. — requires a momentary pause; and it is precisely that couple of seconds of gathering one’s thoughts which saves one from further putting fuel upon a potential fire.
Perhaps you have every right to have responded with a drip of sarcasm; or others would have approved of the lashing back; and still others would say that the response was appropriate and deservedly given. But the greater question should always be: how effective was the response; did it evoke the necessary end; and for whose benefit was the aggressive retort given — for the benefit of truth, or for one’s own satisfaction?
In a professional context, of course, it is probably never appropriate to respond in an unprofessional way, if merely by definition alone. Similarly, in a FERS or CSRS Federal Disability Retirement context, when one receives a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there are statements made — whether one pertaining to mis-application or mis-statement of the law; or perhaps a wrong reference to a medical report; or even more egregious, a selective use of a statement from a medical report or record taken out of context — which can deservedly provoke a response involving sarcasm, a deluge of epithets, or worse, a barrage of ad hominem attacks — and in each case, it would be neither appropriately given, nor proper in a professional sense.
Fortunately, paper presentations and paper responses have the advantage of time over social discourse and person-to-person contact.
Holding one’s breath and counting 3 seconds, or 10, or perhaps an eternity, is an effective way of avoiding catastrophe. Writing a diatribe of what one wants to say, then trashing it, is also acceptable. On the other hand, beware of that “send” button; and, moreover, never push that “send to all” button.
That would indeed be unprofessional.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: OPM Disability Process - 2nd Stage: OPM Reconsideration Stage, When the OPM Application Is Denied | Tagged: a rational response to an unreasonable letter of denial opm benefits, an effective federal disability retirement application, an effective written communication to the opm, an individualized response to your fers disability denial, an understandable emotional response to an irrational fers disability decision, applying old-fashioned ethical principles in the second stage of the federal disability retirement process, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, denial of fers disability benefits and the proper response, effective personal skills when dealing with supervisors, emotional comments won't always help to get opm application approved, federal disability attorney, fers disability retirement and effective communication, how to respond to a federal disability retirement denial, law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america, legal effectiveness in government disability claims, legal help after first application denial, legal services for federal and postal workers all across america, nationwide representation of federal employees, one key ingredient for a successful fers disability claim: effective communication, reflecting on emotional tone from the legal angle, refrain from fast and emotional responses when opm denies your disability claim, representing federal employees from any us government agency, resources for injured federal workers, Responding to an Initial Federal Disability Retirement Denial of Benefits, response to denial of opm disability retirement benefits, Second Step OPM Appeal, the 2nd fers disability stage is still an administrative process with the opm, the date of the denial letter and responding to a denial of opm disability benefits, the dreaded denial letter, the effective way of presenting one's opm disability case, the federal disability retirement application with an emotional tone deep inside in the objective medical language used, the opm case worker at the second stage of the federal disability retirement process, the role of the applicant during the second stage, the second stage opm representative, using some emotional content in your fers disability application, USPS disability retirement, we may be talking about emotional issues or medical documentation -- but never forget the nexus | Leave a comment »