Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: The Volume-based Application

A declaration of the sheer volume of medical evidence submitted is often an indicator of the basis for which a Federal Disability Retirement application was formulated; for, in the end, if reliance of the successful outcome of a Federal Disability Retirement application is expected based upon the longevity and extent of a medical condition, the chances of an initial approval may be somewhat compromised to begin with.

Volume can never replace content; and from the perspective of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is often an underlying suspicion that receipt of a thousand pages of medical documentation indicates merely that volume of treatment is being substituted for the substantive content of meeting the required legal standards.

Much of medical notation and treatment records merely reflect a particular appointment’s mechanical applications — continuation of previous treatment plan; refill of prescriptions; standard positive or negative responses to particular questions; prospective treatment modalities; and, as supportive evidence attached to a substantive medical report, they can reinforce the satisfaction of the legal criteria of establishing the necessary nexus between one’s medical condition and the inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.  But left as a replacement for the doctor’s explicit statement confirming such a nexus, it remains a hollow voice within an expansive but empty chamber.

One should never mistake the legal distinction between “primary” evidence and “supportive” evidence.  The former is meant to establish the nexus between one’s medical condition and the essential elements of one’s job; the latter is submitted to reinforce the former.  When one utilizes the former as the substitute for the latter, it is like the self-delusion that just because you are the best player on a pick-up team in your neighborhood, you are ready to enter into the world of professional sports.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Gargantuan Bureaucracy

Gargantuan; Leviathan-like; Mammoth; Elephantine; such descriptive words at once describe and simultaneously belie the true nature of an entity, especially when it comes to an administrative bureaucracy at the Federal Government level.  Agencies are organic structures, made up of micro-entities (i.e., people), divided into sections which operate within an infrastructure of larger branches, some of which are essential to the direction of the organism, others which are peripheral but still serve a minor purpose.

Thus, a Federal Agency can be likened to the human body; certain “parts” can be severed without doing mortal harm (a toe or a finger, perhaps); other organs are vital to the very survival of the living organism.  Within that large structural entity lives and breathes the multiplicity of components which make up the composite whole.  Because of the sheer size, it is advisable to retain evidence of anything which has been forwarded or sent in for consumption by the beast.

Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement case, whether under the CSRS or  FERS system, the normal course of business in encountering the U.S. Office of Personnel Management should include the ability to show that a vital piece of information was sent and can be verified that it was sent.

Receipt is another matter.  Once a beast consumes its prey, it is difficult enough to try and reach down its throat to see if it made its way into the proper digestive system.  All that one can show is that it was fed; whether and how it was received is often known only by the burp of satisfaction echoing from the winding corridors of an endless maze.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
OPM Disability Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Always Verify Submissions

The old saying:  Measure twice, cut once, can be adapted here:  Verify twice, submit once.  I am always surprised by Federal and Postal employees who have filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS to hear that a document, a submission, a Request for Reconsideration, an appeal, etc., was sent to the Office of Personnel Management by regular mail, with no manner of verification.  While I have great respect for the personnel who work at the U.S. Postal Service as well as the Office of Personnel Management, such issues have nothing to do with individual competence; instead, it has to do with the recognition that all oversized agencies (do we even have to argue as to what is defined as an “oversized agency”?) have their internal mail problems — not only of sending or receiving mail, but getting it to the right person, etc.  Not everyone needs to be overly “verification-sensitive” like I am, but my methodology for every document forwarded to OPM is as follows:  faxed (with a print-out of a receipt showing that the fax went through), as well as an express mail or FedEx tracking number.  Verify twice, submit once.  The Office of Personnel Management has never won an argument with me that they “never received it.”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire