Responding to an OPM Disability Retirement application denial is fraught with dangers of addressing the right issue; whether such a response does so adequately; and the determination of the extent of what constitutes “adequacy” in such a response. Properly reading the “road signs” is the key to a successful response. For, to begin with, cogency and brevity are not characteristics which are common in an OPM Disability Retirement denial.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management utilizes multiple templates in referring to the sufficiency of legal and documentary proof, and will often shift arbitrarily in declaring why, and to what extent, a Federal or Postal disability retirement application did not meet the standard of proof required, which is governed by a “preponderance of the evidence”. They will, of course, often cite various legal “criteria”, and number them accordingly, as in: “You did not meet Criteria Number 4 in that…”
In responding, it is important to address the critical issues which OPM regards as central to its decision, and as all roads lead back to Rome, so it is with a response to a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in a Federal Disability Retirement case: All roads lead back to the original nexus of whether a Federal or Postal employee can perform all of the essential elements of one’s job within the context of the severity and extent of one’s medical conditions, and to the issue of whether or not a “reasonable” accommodation could have been provided by the individual’s agency.
Broken down into its foundational components, the pathways can be ultimately discerned, and the proverbial fork-in-the-road leading one to the right way back to Rome will often depend upon how the traveler interprets the signs.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: When the OPM Application Is Denied | Tagged: all signs of application deficiency usually lead to the two same basic federal disability concepts, appeal to first OPM denial decision, applying for federal disability, careful walking in the path toward federal disability retirement, civil service disability retirement, denial of fers disability benefits and the proper response, disability retirement at the USPS, essential elements of jobs, examining the opm denial letter to figure out substantive issues with the original application, federal employee disability, filing for OPM disability retirement, going back to the basics after your fers disability retirement application is denied, law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america, legal services for federal and postal workers all across america, looking for clues in the opm disability denial letter to find out the substantive issues, opm denial letter templates and the essence of the denial, OPM disability application tips and strategies, opm road signs that lead toward the nexus, Postal disability retirement, Postal Service disability, proper response to the agency, responding to a denial of fers disability benefits with the basic statutory requirements in mind, statutory requirements in OPM disability law, the limited power of the opm to justify denials, the nexus and the accommodation issues must be emphasized during the fers disability reconsideration stage, the nexus and the other less difficult issue that must be nevertheless addressed: accommodations, the original federal disability retirement application, the path toward financial independence for a disabled federal employee, the signs of a denial letter always point back to the basics: the nexus concept, usps denial federal compensation attorney, when all your medical and health issues point toward federal disability retirement | 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 »