The complaint heard most prevalent is that the “law” is deliberately complicated for the benefit of lawyers, and to the detriment of the lay person. That is the one of the points which Dickens makes in his work, Bleak House — a lengthy work which meticulously follows the probate of a contested will, where the lawyers involved appear to be the only beneficiaries of the central litigation. But that only tells one side of a story.
Complexities in any issue surface because of lack of clarity; and lack of clarity manifests itself as each case brings to the forefront questions and concerns previously unspoken or uncontested. As an example — the issue in Stephenson v. OPM, where the U.S. Office of Personnel Management refused to recalculate one’s FERS Disability Retirement annuity even though the annuitant was no longer receiving SSDI benefits, because OPM interpreted the word “entitled” in a unique and perverse manner — could have been left alone without litigation, and therefore allowed to remain a simple matter.
This had been going on for decades. But somebody — Mr. Stephenson in particular — decided that OPM’s actions were unfair, and that it needed to be litigated. Did it complicate matters? Complexity is an inherent part of the law, and as issues become contested, the evolution of a body of law can expand into a compendium of complexity.
It is no different with Federal Disability Retirement. Yes, Federal Disability Retirement law is a complex body of administrative issues; it requires expertise; but if it was left alone, you can be assured that OPM would step over, on, and around many more Federal and Postal Workers who are otherwise eligible and entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits. That is why complexity can go both ways — for the agency, but also for the Federal or Postal employee.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Clarifications of Laws or Rules | Tagged: an easy form and the complex statutory criteria of opm disability law, an example of opm's perverted interpretation of disability law: stephenson v. opm case, argumentation and interpretation in opm disability law, civil service disability retirement, complex issues surrounding a fers disability application, contradictory excuses the opm uses to deny disability compensation, danger of misinterpretation of opm disability judge-made laws, excuses the opm disability specialist uses to deny disability benefits, federal disability attorney, fers disability cases are become even more complex because of evolving case laws, filing for OPM disability retirement, is the opm "a force of evil" or just "not your close relative"?, legal interpretation of opm medical retirement law, legal representation for injured federal workers, misinterpretation of medical facts in opm disability claims, misinterpretation or misapplication of OPM disability law, OPM disability application tips and strategies, opm's excuses to deny your federal disability retirement, opm's interpretation of federal disability laws, opm's misinterpretation of the legal standard used to approve fers disability retirement, Postal Service disability, recognizing the complexity of the opm disability process, stephenson v. OPM -- an example of why federal disability law can be so complicated, the authority to interpret and administer opm disability law, the complexity of what it should be a straightforward process, the injured federal employee and his necessary evil: the opm, the intrinsic complexities of the federal disability retirement process, the most complete blog on federal disability retirement, the simplicity of an inherently complex disability process under fers or csrs, the stephenson v. opm case, the theory and practice of opm disability statutory interpretation, when the opm interpretes disability statutes in its own way, why federal disability law can be so complex | Leave a comment »