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 essential 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 should 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 employed.
Federal Disability Retirement, whether for FERS or CSRS 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
Filed under: Eligibility Criteria | Tagged: a limited background medical information loaded with medical facts and legal arguments, approving your opm disability retirement with an objective foundation, assuming selective reading comprehension problems during the fers disability form filing, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, avoiding to neglect the substantive paradigm of the opm disability retirement case, changing paradigms: when federal disability retirement is not a choice but the choice, complex argumentation in federal disability applications, criteria of denial instead of criteria of disability in opm disability, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, eligibility criteria for disability under fers and csrs laws, established diagnostic criteria on mental conditions, Federal Disability, federal disability law and legal argumentation, federal disability law blog, federal disability retirement, going beyond the official eligibility criteria to get your application approved, how to get approved for federal employee disability benefits, how to win a federal employee disability claim, if the opm ignores the opm disability criteria of eligibility, lack of objective medical evidence used to deny postal disability, nationwide representation of federal employees, no objective evidence absolutely necessary for some medical conditions, OPM disability retirement, opm disability retirement: a paradigm of hope and a second chance, opm medical retirement qualification ruled by legal criteria of eligibility, opm's objective and subjective federal disability retirement computations, paradigms that fed employees face on disability retirement, postal disability retirement blog, representing federal employees in and outside the country, selectiv, selective prosecution of the opm disability retirement law, statutory criteria for eligibility for disability, the clear paradigms but the difficult decision to make for a federal employee with a chronic medical condition, the fight to get approved for fers disability benefits, the role of legal argumentation in federal disability cases, the rules and criteria for disability retirement under fers/csrs, usps disability blog, USPS disability retirement, what criteria needs to be met to prove opm disability?, when "objective medical evidence" is not necessary, your medical retirement claim and the opm's selective picks | Leave a comment »
OPM Disability Retirement: Service Deficiency & Medical Condition
The Office of Personnel Management will often use as a criteria of denial the argument/basis that despite the fact that an individual may have a medical condition such that the medical documentation states that the Federal or Postal worker can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, nevertheless, there has not been a showing that a “service deficiency” has occurred. Often, agencies systematically write up performance appraisals without much thought or consideration; more often, Federal and Postal workers quietly suffer through his or her medical condition, and strive each day to meet the requirements of their duties.
Whatever the reason for the lack of attention or perception on the part of the supervisor or the agency to recognize that the Federal or Postal worker has not been able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, such basis for a denial of a disability retirement application by the Office of Personnel Management is not a legitimate one, because existence of a “service deficiency” is not the whole story: if it is found that retention in the job is “inconsistent” with the type of medical condition the Federal or Postal Worker has, then such a finding would “trump” the lack of any service deficiency. That is not something, however, that the Office of Personnel Management is likely to tell you as they deny your disability retirement application.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: OPM Disability Actors - The Agency, OPM Disability Actors - The Supervisor, U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) | Tagged: adverse agency reaction, agency's extraordinary top assessment in fers disability applications, agency's influence in disability retirement, assessment for postal disability retirement from supervisor, criteria of denial instead of criteria of disability in opm disability, disability retirement csrs, disability retirement usps non job related, disability retirement workers compensation, essential elements of jobs not so essential according to evaluation, federal disability facts, federal disability law firm, federal medical retirement, fers disability application supervisor comments, FERS disability attorney, fers disability attorney in mississippi, fers disability benefits, government postal disability, injured postal workers and their miraculous job evaluations, law firm for federal disability retirement, medical disability lawyers opm, opm disability and the supervisor who says everything's fine, opm disability for federal employees in louisiana, opm disability for federal workers in alabama, opm disability retirement representation in utah, opm supervisor statement disability retirement, opm's excuses to deny your federal disability retirement, owcp disability retirement really is usually meant "opm disability retirement", owcp medical retirement, postal service disability retirement, postal service medical retirement, representing federal employees from any us government agency, representing federal employees in and outside the country, representing us government disability employees anywhere, the incapacitated federal employee without service deficiency, USPS disability retirement benefits, washington state federal opm disability retirement, when supervisors don't notice any medical condition in federal worker, when the agency claims no service deficiency in opm application, when there is no accommodation because there is no job deficiency, when top performance hurts the chances of getting fers disability, when work performance evaluations are near too perfect, Workers Comp disability, workers comp fers retirement, your supervisor and federal disability retirement | Leave a comment »