Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Assumptions and Presumptions

At what point does a house of cards collapse, when based upon assumptions and presumptions?  The words are used interchangeably; the slight conceptual distinctions may be of irrelevant import to justify differentiation.  One can perhaps quibble that assumptions point more toward the conclusory stage of an argument, whereas presumptions often involve the prefatory issues in a logical sequence of argumentation.

Both engage suppositions not based upon “facts”; and, of course, there is the problematic issue of what constitutes facts, as opposed to mere assertions of events and opinions derived from such facts and events; with the further compounding and confounding task of sifting through what was witnessed, what was thought to have been observed, when, who, the intersection between memory, event, and sequence of occurrences, etc.

Presumably (here we go using the very word which we are writing about, which is rather presumptuous to begin with), Bishop Berkeley would have allowed for either and both to be used in order to maneuver through the world without bumping into chairs and tables which, for him, were mere perceptual constructs in the subjective universe of “ideas” in the heads of individuals.  And Hume, for all of his logical deconstructionism concerning the lack of a “necessary connection” between cause and effect, would assume that, in the commonplace physical world we occupy, presumptions are necessary in order to begin the chain of sequential events. Waking up and walking down the stairs to get a cup of coffee, one need not wait for the necessary connection between thought and act in order to begin the day.

For Federal and Postal employees who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, proceeding through the administrative morass of one’s agency and ultimately into the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, based upon the dual deterrents of assumptions and presumptions, can be a harrowing experience.  It is not the factual basis which defeats a Federal Disability Retirement application filed with OPM; rather, it is always the baseless presumptions and assumptions which kill the successful outcome.

Medical facts must be established; narrative facts about the impact upon one’s inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job can be asserted; but it is always the connective presumptions and unintended assumptions which complicate and confuse. Always remember that a narrative based purely upon presumptions and assumptions cannot possibly exist without the concrete adhesives of some foundational facts; like a house of cards, it waits merely for the gods of chance to blow a puff of unforeseen breath to topple the structure that was built without an adequate foundation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: A Different Approach

Insanity is sometimes defined as the repetition of behavior despite evidence to the contrary.  But if that is the accepted definition of insanity, most individuals would qualify and fit into the description.  For, security of habitual repetitiveness is what often drives the individual, and the common adage of trying to “think outside of the proverbial box” is something which is not natural to man.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the repetition of OPM’s template, applied to hundreds, if not thousands, of denial letters to Federal and Postal employee applications for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, often requires a “different approach”.

Individuals who attempt to obtain a Federal Disability Retirement annuity without legal representation engage in the process at a stark disadvantage:  they leave the third rail — the legal argumentation — with a void.  For, whether the original application itself, or a response to a denial and engagement at the Reconsideration Stage, or an appeal to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board — being “inside” or “outside” the box, or taking a conventional approach as opposed to a “different” approach, the three rails of success must always include the medical documentation, the facts pertaining to one’s positional duties, and the legal basis for an approval.

Different approaches are fine; but regardless of which approach one takes, one must always have the foundational approach left intact, in order to build the (also proverbial) house on a solid footing, lest it fall and blow away as a house of cards.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire