Federal Disability Retirement: Surprise in the Universe of Reconsiderations

Until the science of Physics can implement the ability of molecular and particle transference technology (i.e., “Beam me up, Scotty”), there is little potential of resolving the Cartesian mind/body dualism (i.e., that French Philosopher Rene Descartes, who bifurcated the world between the material and the spiritual). But such dualism in philosophical terms does not mean that we can be at two places at one time; or even attempt to be “objective” when the subjective “I” is the very same person who is attempting to appear objective.

In Federal Disability Retirement law, when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issues a denial letter, the customary response by the denied OPM applicant, whether a Postal Worker or a non-Postal Federal Worker, is that he or she is “surprised” by the initial denial because of the strength, completeness, and thoroughness of one’s Disability Retirement packet.  But that should be a given.

No one who files with OPM should do so without meeting the requisite foundations of thoroughness or completeness.  But this is where the problem is:  the very person who determines that a Federal Disability Retirement application is sufficient, is the same person who suffers from the very medical conditions of which the application speaks about.

The subjective/objective coalescence makes for a difficult mind/body dualism, in that the one who suffers from the medical condition can hardly assess and evaluate, in an objective manner, the strength of the Federal Disability Retirement application.

Thus, the Cartesian mind/body dualism lives on, and until Captain Kirk can guide us otherwise, such bifurcated dualism will continue to pervade all Federal Disability Retirement applications, whether under FERS or CSRS, and the denials which follow will still have the familiar response of, “Surprise!”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: The Strategy of Disheartening the Opposition

When Federal and Postal employees who have filed for FERS Medical Retirement benefits and have been denied at the initial stage of the process, many are sincerely disheartened.

In my initial contact with the denied applicant, there are multiple levels of reactions, including:  the denial letter points to legal criteria which they were unaware of; it refers to doctors notations which are taken completely out of context; they have completely ignored major portions of what the doctor has stated; OPM points to legal criteria which has been met, but which OPM simply denies that it has been met.

What can be done?  This is the strategy of disheartening the opposition.

In other denials, it is simply a matter of referring to a doctor’s report here, and to a medical notation there; then to simply declare:  You have not submitted sufficient medical documentation and fail to meet the legal criteria to be eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

What can be done?  No explanation; just scant references, then a unilateral declaration.  Again, this is the strategy of disheartening the opposition.  What to do?  Don’t get disheartened.  Respond.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Reconsideration Decisions

Types of reconsideration decisions denying an applicant his or her Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS can and do span the entire spectrum, depending upon the OPM representative who writes up the decision:  from half a page (barely giving a passing, respectful review to a packet which took multiple hours to put together) to over 3 pages long (in the “Discussion Section”); from merely listing general principles of law and generalized, template-like denials to apparent detailed (but very selective) references to various medical reports submitted by the applicant as part of the disability retirement packet — they all boil down to the same thing:  a denial at the initial application stage.

Often, an initial reaction to the denial encompasses a myriad of responses, ranging from incredulity, to resignation, to anger, to indignation.  Set aside the emotionalism.  Further, there is often the reaction to that “one piece” of medical information which the applicant believes should have turned that “denial” into an “approval” — that “one piece” of medical note, statement, sentence, or paragraph which the OPM representative conveniently disregarded or chose not to reference.  Don’t ruminate over it.  It may well be that it was deliberately disregarded; it may even have been overlooked.  More than likely, the OPM representative was fully aware of it, but decided to selectively choose his or her basis as the more “important” and “substantive” evidence, forming the core rationale of the denial.  Don’t waste time.  More work is needed — both medical as well as legal.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The Attorney’s Role

It may sound harsh; it may even sound “mean”; but I often tell my potential clients that I am not their therapist, doctor, or empathy-advisor.  I am their attorney.  When advising people to respond to an Office of Personnel Management denial with some “discretion”, it is often difficult for an individual who is so closely tied with his or her own case, to remain objective and detached.  Yet, detachment is the mark of professionalism, and that is why the old adage is true — that an individual who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. 

My job as an attorney who represents Federal and Postal employees to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS & CSRS must be guided with a focus of understanding the factual context, the medical conditions, the type of job, the symptomatologies manifested by the medical conditions, and apply the law governing disability retirement issues.  If I become a therapist, it detracts from my focus; if I become an empathy-advisor, I become “attached”, as opposed to de-tached.  That is not to say that I will not listen to the relevant medical background (note the confusing double-negative, which merely means that yes, I will listen, to some extent) — I certainly will.  But only to the extent that will allow me to win the case for my client.  For, that is my job:  to get an approval from the Office of Personnel Management.  If I am successful at that, then my client will have gained all the needed empathy of the world:  a semblence of financial security.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire