Federal Disability Retirement: Reconsideration Selectivity

Perceptual selectivity is an adaptive process of some evolutionary benefits; otherwise, the voluminous extent of bombarding stimuli would be too much to process and digest. We naturally focus upon certain perceptual activities; perhaps it is the brighter colors, the more aggressive movements, the objects which seem to portend potential threats, etc.  In modern societies, where attacking cougars and lions are merely mythological stories of the past (except perhaps out West, where such events still abound), selective excision occurs more often in the context of linguistic extraction.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management:  Disability, Reconsideration and Appeals Group

For Federal and Postal Workers who file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS, the process of selective extrapolation and argumentation can be a frustrating encounter when a denial of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application is issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management at the initial stage of the process (and even at the Reconsideration Stage).

It is indicative of the decision-maker’s mindset, and not necessarily as a consequence of the proof submitted.  There may be quotations extracted from medical reports and records seemingly supportive of a denial, while all the time ignoring countervailing wording and opinions which contradict or otherwise reverse the unsupportive statements.

Selectivity in the endeavor to find support for one’s position is simply something that people do.  You may cry out, “But where is the objectivity which is supposed to exist?” Objectivity is a learned process, achieved through discipline and intellectually rigorous self-effacement; selective bias, on the other hand, is the natural default position resulting from the evolutionary vestiges of man’s former state of existence. The residue of man’s natural state will always remain; but with the camouflage of sophistication presented in modern society, selectivity of purpose can mask our former state of brutish behavior.

For those encountering such selective processes in a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the road to counter it is to argue the compendium of fact, law and full context of medical opinions, in preparing a full counterattack representing a viable refutation. In the end, the attempt at selectivity of facts and the law can easily be rebutted; but it often takes an awakening of the other’s evolutionary tendencies — of a potential threat of stimuli through the aggressive use of the law — which will result in a victory via an award of one’s Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

 

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

 

Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer blog: Meeting the Legal Criteria

Lawyers often speak about “the law” as if it has the character of a science — of established principles which are objective, without the arbitrary influences of subjective interpretive devices or nuances. But even science itself fails any pure test of universal unalterability; one need only read Kuhn’s description of shifting paradigms in the history of science (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) to understand that objectivity is merely another word for pragmatism. For, that which “works” or is “effective” in the eyes of the greatest number of people, is what matters to most people. That is why success is an irreplaceable harbinger of general opinion.

In the Federal government, one would like to expect application of rules, regulations, etc., somewhat in an algorithmic form, where favoritism is lacking, and where everyone has a “clean shot” at everything.

Especially when it comes to a benefit such as Federal Disability Retirement, which impacts those who are most unfortunate — one beset with a medical condition such that one can no longer perform all of the critical elements of one’s job — an expectation that an objective criteria which can be met by pure factual presentation, legal magnification of relevant statutes and laws, and perhaps some modicum of argumentation for persuasion, is what it should really occur in a perfect world.  But as the proverbial perfect world fails to materialize, we must do with what we are given; subjective interpretation, and selective analysis are merely human frailties and imperfections.

That is why legal argumentation and countering of subjectivism must be the proper, employed approach.

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement, whether for CSRS or FERS employees of the Federal government, must be fought for, and “won”; there is no mathematical algorithm of objective application; there is no parallel universe of perfection; there is only the human condition, which requires interpretation, knowledge, analysis, and argumentation which persuades and cajoles.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Implicit v. Explicit

That which is not explicitly stated, may leave room for the listener to infer multiple meanings based upon the implicit statement of the speaker or writer.

Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, filed with and obtained through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is important to state with explicit redundancy those elements which meet the legal criteria for eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  X impacts positional element Y.  X may impact positional elements Y or Z.  X will surely prevent Mr. A from performing some of the essential elements of his job.  Of these three statements, which one states unequivocally and explicitly, while the other two allow for inferences which may well result in a denial from the Office of Personnel Management?  Obviously, the answer is the first statement, leaving the subsequent two room for inference and implication.

Remember that the Disability, Reconsideration and Appeals “Specialist” at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is specifically targeting a Federal Disability Retirement application for any excuse to deny it.  The reviewer will selectively choose any cracks in the aggregate of the disability retirement packet, and where there is room for inference or implication, the language used will be interpreted in the light most favorable to the Office of Personnel Management, to issue a denial in a Federal Disability Retirement case.

Wherever and whenever possible, make explicit that which sounds implicit.  The crack of dawn is a time to get up and get things accomplished; a crack in the meaning and usage of language is merely an excuse for misuse and abuse.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: The Necessity of Explicit Redundancy

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to submit material, at each and every turn possible and available, which repetitively and redundantly satisfies each of the legal criteria necessary to meet the eligibility requirements as espoused by the Office of Personnel Management.

Whether it is because the Case Worker at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management does not have the time (because of being overworked) to “read between the lines”, extrapolate or otherwise comprehend the implicit meaning of a statement; or the mechanical application of the “7-part” legal criteria is merely performed by comparing and contrasting the listed legal criteria to the substantive contents of the Federal Disability Retirement application — the reasons for the failure to understand the implicit (and sometimes explicit) import of the statements made are irrelevant.

Thus, for example, one would assume that if a medical narrative report states that the medical condition upon which a Federal Disability Retirement application is based, is considered to be a “permanent” medical condition, then one would implicitly understand that such a statement meets the criteria concerning the requirement that a medical condition must last for a minimum of 12 months in order to meet the eligibility criteria under the law.

However, “permanent” does not necessarily mean (apparently) “lasting for a minimum of 12 months”, and whether the interpretation is somehow lost because the words themselves do not perfectly conform, or because there is some nuance of meanings which only OPM is privileged to comprehend, is an irrelevancy.  What is relevant is to meet the legal criteria and the guidelines of the law.  As such, make sure and have the medical provider understand that language used must conform to the letter of the law — literally.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire