OPM Disability Retirement: “It May Sound Good”

There is the statutory legal criteria which is mandated by law, by case-law, and by regulatory dictum as to the proper application of review in making a determination on a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS or CSRS.  Yet, the question is whether or not the Office of Personnel Management has applied the proper legal criteria in making its determination, and the answer to such a question can only be evaluated based upon the language which is utilized by OPM in its denial letter. 

An approval letter issued by the Office of Personnel Management is entirely unrevealing, precisely because it is simply a template letter advising the approved Federal Disability Retirement annuitant of the next steps to follow.  However, when a denial letter is issued by the Office of Personnel Management, often the Claims Representative will insert language which “sounds good” and proper, and even convincing — but ultimately, wrong as far as the proper application of the law is concerned.  For example, OPM may assert with unequivocal brevity that there lacks “compelling medical evidence” in the Federal Disability Retirement application.  “Compelling” is not a legal criteria required by statute, case-law, or regulatory dictum.  As such, it is a meaningless word-usage.

Moreover, it is harmful to a case because it means that OPM applied a standard of review which is nowhere found in any statute.  Further, it gives an appearance of authenticity and authoritative credibility where none exists.  What to do about it?  It needs to be addressed and pointed out — but diplomatically.  Diplomacy is nothing more than a forceful rebuttal clothed in the finery of courtesy, but it is a necessary ingredient in establishing the proper tone and tenor of a response to OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: Meeting the Statutory Minimum

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, the Federal or Postal employee must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence (that burden of proof which is fairly minimal in the order of difficulty, requiring that a Federal or Postal employee show that he or she is “more likely than not” entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS) that the compilation of the evidence meets the statutory requirements such that one is eligible and entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  

Thus, it is the cumulative set of evidence which is reviewed by the Office of Personnel Management, and not merely a single piece of evidence.  Yet, the manner and methodology of how OPM reviews the evidence is revealed in any given denial letter issued by the claims representative, or the “Legal and Administrative Specialist” assigned to any particular case.  

It is a methodology of (A)  listing whatever medical evidence which was submitted by naming the doctors, thereby giving an appearance of a full and thorough review of the documents, and (B) selectively extrapolating statements made by the Applicant, the Supervisor, the doctor(s) and anyone else in attempting to undermine the conclusion that the statutory criteria for eligibility has been met.  In laymen’s terms, this is called, “Taking potshots” at something.  If meeting the criteria for eligibility is to show a sequence of connecting dots from point A to point B, then OPM’s view is that if there are enough potshots which sever the line between the points, then OPM has shown that a Federal or Postal employee is ineligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  

This is the approach; it is up to the applicant who is preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS to ensure that any weak links in the line are sufficiently reinforced.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire