Tag Archives: identifying what substantive concerns the opm rep had when he or she denied benefits

Federal Worker Disability Retirement: Getting Lost in a Morass

At each step in the administrative process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management, including any responses to denials from OPM in order to qualify for the subsequent stage of the process (i.e., a Request for Reconsideration must be filed within thirty (30) days of the denial; an appeal must be filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board, etc.), there is always the danger of becoming lost in the morass of peripheral issues, often resulting from a sense of panic upon an initial reading of correspondence received.  

Thus, whether it is a letter from the Office of Personnel Management for additional medical documentation; a decision of denial at the Initial Stage of the Process; a second denial from the Office of Personnel Management — it is important to have a sense of how one must extract the essential points which must be addressed, and refuse to respond in a reactionary, ineffective manner.

Compiling an immediate response based upon an initial reading is normally a waste of time.  Verbiage which takes up space on a page of paper does not in and of itself mean that it requires a substantive response.  Much of what the Office of Personnel Management states can be summarized in a couple of sentences, once all of the ancillary issues are set aside.  

Further, it is more often the case than not, that what the Office of Personnel Management states as the requirements of “the law” is simply wrong.  OPM is rarely up-to-date on the current case-law as handed down by the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Compliance with the law is one thing; compliance with the wrong law and an erroneous interpretation of legal requirements is quite another.  

To panic is to remain in a morass; to re-review the legal requirements in the administrative process of applying for, and becoming eligible for, Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS or CSRS, is essential to the road to success.


Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: An Additional Problem with Answering an OPM Denial

Spring and summer are finally upon us; the warmth of the sun finally brings some hope that the multiple series of snowstorms may be finally behind us (now that I have said it, the chances are exponentially multiplied that we will accumulate an additional 20 inches of snow in March).  Thoughts of the beach will soon become visually real, as opposed to virtually experienced.  Sand.  The metaphor of the “shifting sand” is one which is applicable to the Office of Personnel Management in its denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.  Those of you who have followed my stream of consciousness on the issue of templates, denial letters and the arbitrary nature of OPM’s decision-making process, will not find it surprising to find that OPM merely shifts, changes positions, and dances around (albeit, not always gracefully) any attempt to “corner” the argument which purportedly is the basis for a denial of a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application

Do not, however, underestimate the importance of properly, directly, and clearly answering the concerns of an OPM denial.  It is not enough to gather more medical documentation and sending them in.  It is not enough to address, point by point, the basis of a denial letter.  One must corner, clarify, and clearly define the basis of an OPM denial, then refute them.  This way, if it is denied a second time, and the case goes before an Administrative Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board, the AJ will see that the issues previously brought forth by OPM have already been addressed, and that any necessity for a Hearing may be avoided by clarifying any remaining concerns which the OPM representative may need to search for and articulate. 


Robert R. McGill, Esquire