In reviewing a Federal Disability Retirement application under CSRS or FERS, the mandate of burden is determined both by statute and regulation, and the Merit Systems Protection Board reiterates the burden of proof in each of its decisions — that of proving one’s case by a “Preponderance of the Evidence“.
This is a relatively low standard of proof — of showing that one is eligible and entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS based upon a showing that, with all of the evidence considered, it is more likely than not that the Federal or Postal employee has shown that he or she cannot perform, because of one or more medical conditions, one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.
There is often a question as to whether this same standard of evidentiary showing applies to the Office of Personnel Management, and this question is posed because of the statements made in many of the denial letters (which then prompts a necessary request for Reconsideration, or an administrative appeal to the 2nd Stage of the process; or, if denied at the 2nd Stage — the Reconsideration Stage — then an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board) issued by the Office of Personnel Management, to wit: The evidence you submitted did not show a “compelling” reason why you could not…; The medical evidence did not show that you had to be “excluded from the workplace completely”; and other statements which seems to require a higher showing than that of “preponderance of the evidence“.
OPM is supposed to follow the same standard of proof — that of preponderance of the evidence. Sometimes, they need to be reminded of it.
However, inasmuch as the safety mechanism for review of an improper standard is an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, such a reminder often must take the form of an appeal. Without the appeal basis, the Office of Personnel Management can ignore the relevant statutory burden of proof. But then, that would not be the first time that an agency acted in a non-compliant manner.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Burden of Proof | Tagged: applicant preponderance of evidence burden in federal employees, arguing "error of law" in an opm disability claim, arguing a case on behalf of the injured federal employee, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, documentation for federal medical retirement, Federal Disability, federal disability law blog, federal disability retirement, FERS disability retirement, how to successfully argue and error of law in opm disability litigation, improper standard opm disability retirement, meeting all of the critical elements and the opm's legal burden of proof, meeting the burden of eligibility requirements for medical retirement under fers, nationwide representation of federal employees, opm disability law and the preponderance of evidence concept, OPM disability retirement, opm supportive medical documentation, opm's own legislation and usps disability retirement, owcp disability retirement, Postal disability, postal service disability retirement, preponderance of the evidence concept in fers disability law, preponderance of the evidence documents, standard of proof applicable to opm disability retirement, statutory criteria for eligibility for disability, statutory requirements in OPM disability law, strong and irrefutable medical evidence, the burden of proof concept in opm disability, the standard of proof, the theory and practice of opm disability statutory interpretation, USPS disability retirement, watching out what statutory weapons the opm will use to deny disability, what "standard of proof" applies to fers disability retirement, when the opm applies its own rules to your fers disability application, when the OPM creates its own laws | 1 Comment »
OPM Disability Retirement Help: Different Standards
To overdress is almost always acceptable; to underdress — well, while it may be acceptable, you may have to endure being the subject of curiosity and quiet whispers of raised eyebrows.
There are different standards for every occasion, endeavor, event or engagement; some high, others low; a few enforced without exception while still maintaining a sense of decorum and the rest of them left to ignored apathy where anything goes. Some private clubs seem to thrive upon the exclusivity of standards maintained so high that few can meet the exceptionalism applied, while those more accessible to the public allow for flagrant violations with nary a nod or a wink.
It is when the context becomes the content that eyebrows become raised, and the higher the brow the more exclusive the thinking. For the rebel, it is always difficult to try and convey the notion that one must adapt and change with the circumstances — that standards are applied, and you must recognize those standards and act accordingly.
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the standards set have now failed to be met — whether at the personal level or the professional — it might be time to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.
Whether through a recognition of the standards set for yourself — which is often higher than what is acceptable by others — or because you are beginning to get the hints that your agency or the Postal Facility has become dissatisfied with your work performance, your attendance or excessive use of sick leave; whatever the reason, the plain fact is that the medical condition itself is always the basis for determining the need to alter and modify one’s personal and professional standard.
Don’t be too hard on yourself. The standard you used to apply before the onset of a medical condition should not be the same one that is applied to your present situation, and you should therefore consider that the standard of maintaining one’s health is the present priority exclusively, no matter what your Federal Agency or your Postal Facility tries to have you believe.
Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and determine whether you “meet the standards” to apply for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. They may be different than what you think.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Reflections of an OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer | Tagged: applying the sufficient documentation test to a standard in an opm disability retirement case, awol for medical reasons federal employment, biased disability reasonable accommodation committee in post office and what my options are, blog information from fers attorney end of federal employment for disabled us postal workers, dealing with supervisors negative comments on request for fers disability retirement, different laws and standards of disability, disability leave for postal employees, disciplinary actions and disabilities discrimination fers attorney, disciplinary actions for awol medical leave fers lawyer, excessive sick leave postal employee lawyer, federal employee fers disability for crohns disease, fers benefits if resign for physical or mental impairments, fers opm attorney expert on the usps long term disability application process, fers retirement for stress and depression, fers retirement form 3107 disabling conditions, forced fers medical retirement by us postal service, getting permanent benefits when you have a partial disability which won’t allow you to work in the federal government with efficiency, hiring an attorney excessive sick leave federal employee, how to apply for postal medical retirement benefits, how to resign from a civilian dod position for medical disabilities, how to resign from the postal service if I have a disabling condition, if a postal employee on owcp doesn’t expect to recover from an illness or long term injury, improper standard opm disability retirement, law blog on tips to complete sf 3112 attorney for federal employees, legal standards to be met in an opm disability application, limited duty mail handler with back injury, mail carrier postal employment light duty, opm disability retirement tsa employee, opm disciplined for using excessive sick leave, opm medical retirement filing after resignation from federal employment (be careful there is one year limit only), partial disability benefits federal worker, postal clerk with repetitive type of injuries, postal service letter to sign for disabilities, postal sf 3112 disability application package, qualifying for a disability retirement under opm fers, question to attorney McGill: how long do you have to work to qualify for civil service retirement, recovering from arthritis after employment in the u.s. post office, requesting advance long term leave for postal mail handler, resignation and medical retirement with usps medical retirement attorney, separation from federal employment medical inability to perform position chores, statutory legal standard of disability or impairment, stress traffic control medical retirement lawyer, top fers disability attorney serving now fers disability cranberry pa employees and surrounding areas, tsa.gov transportation security administration medical retirement attorney, us postal service shared services private attorney light duty, watch out for the federal employee medical retirement 80% rule, when sedentary postal positions for light duty won’t work, when there is an unfair termination of federal employee with cognitive limitations contact best fers employee advocate, workers comp with usps long term sickness | Leave a comment »