CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: Beware the Layman

Federal employee attorneys create and manufacture a parallel universe of statutory interpretation, legal argumentation, case-law citations, and extrapolations from esoteric provisions in arguing the “finer points” of law.  Thus, it is a temptation for the lay person — the “non-lawyer” — to attempt to borrow from cases and take a stab at citing case-law and statutory authority in trying to garner support for his or her Federal Disability Retirement application.  In taking on a case at the Reconsideration Stage or the Merit Systems Protection Board, I have the opportunity to read some of the “legal arguments” which non-lawyers have attempted to make.  While many such arguments are valid, some (i.e., too many) mis-cite the law, and often fail to understand and proffer the substantive import of what the cases are saying.  On top of it all, I suspect that the Office of Personnel Management gets a bit annoyed when a non-lawyer applicant attempts to preach the law to another non-lawyer OPM Representative.  A word to the wise:  let lawyers entertain themselves in the parallel universe of the law; let the doctors render their medical opinions; let the non-lawyers make the best arguments possible, in layman’s language. 

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The Packet

It is often a good idea to understand the process of Federal Disability retirement, in order to effectuate the best approach in winning a case. Remember, for instance, that in all likelihood, the Applicant will not be speaking with the Benefits Specialist at the Office of Personnel Management; even if you call them (and I never recommend calling too often, for there is the “irritant” factor, which may — thinking in purely pragmatic terms — result in a First Stage Denial of your case), you will be a faceless entity, and merely one case in a long line of cases for the OPM representative to review and decide upon.

Thus, the key is to prepare your packet well — to not place superfluous medical evidence into the pile; to not just make a complete copy of your medical records (OPM is not interested in medical records dating back more than 2 years, at most, and in most cases, should only go back 1 year) and send it in, hoping that the sheer thickness of your file will convince and persuade OPM that your case is “serious”; instead, to make your packet neat, essential, and to the point. Think about it in pragmatic terms: If you have a project to tackle, and you have a choice to tackle the one with little or no effort, or that “other one” that is a headache and will consume your entire day, which one entices you?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire