Modern philosophy is often considered to have begun with the French philosopher, Descartes; this is perhaps unfortunate, for the resulting inward navel gazing which was precipitated and the subsequent conceptual bifurcation between mind and body, for which we must contend with and pay the price, to this day.
For the longest time, of course, there was a suspicion that psychiatric conditions were somehow less viable and more difficult to prove; this is perhaps as a result of a misconception and misunderstanding of that proof which constitutes “objective” data as opposed to “subjective” interpretations of any factual analysis.
In Federal Disability Retirement cases, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board has steadfastly rejected any notions of subjective/objective differentiation, especially when it comes to psychiatric medical conditions. Fortunately for the Federal and Postal Worker who suffers from medical conditions such that the medical disability prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, the MSPB has repeatedly rejected OPM’s claim that certain medical evidence (clinical examinations and encounters with a psychiatrist, for instance) is merely “subjective”, as opposed to what they deem to be considered “objective” medical evidence.
Whether anyone at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is aware of Descartes and the French philosopher’s profound influence upon the mind/body bifurcation is a matter of factual irrelevance; the important historical point to be recognized is the trickling down impact from theoretical discourses in academia, to the pragmatic application of concepts in bureaucratic administrative functions.
Descartes lives, and the echoes of his philosophical influence resounds and reverberates down into the hallways of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in the daily reviews of Federal Disability Retirement applications.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Mental/Nervous Condition | Tagged: a proven philosofical approach to federal disability retirement, addressing logical and philosophical issues in the long federal disability process, are psychiatric conditions legitimate to retire under fers?, barriers of credibility and legal subjectivity in your opm disability application, Cartesian dualism, civil service disability, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, difficulty in mental conditions postal disability, disabling mental nervous conditions, dualism in philosophical terms, fers disability for mental problems is possible if you avoid some pitfalls, FERS disability retirement, form 3971 sick leave long term disability, is it possible for a postal worker with a psychiatric condition qualify for disability?, job evaluation for federal employees with mental and nervous problems, lawyers as philosophers, long lwop and sick leave for nervous or mental conditions in the us postal service, looking at ''objective truth" through the eyes of the opm during the fers disability process, nationwide representation of federal employees, no objective evidence absolutely necessary for some medical conditions, objective and subjective factors in your federal disability claim, objective medical evidence for federal disability cases, objectivity and legal arguments in a fers disability claim, OPM disability retirement, opm disability retirement and the subjectivity of mental conditions, OPM psychiatric and physical conditions, philosophical pragmatism to the domain of opm disability law, postal service disability retirement, postal workers disability psychiatric disability in OPM disability retirement, pragmatic methodology, pragmatic philosophical principles and opm disability retirement practice, pragmatism in federal disability law, psychiatric conditions in disability retirement fers & owcp, psychiatry and opm disability retirement, René Descartes, representing federal employees from any us government agency, sick leave on ps form 3971 for mental conditions, sick leave or disability retirement for employee incapacitation, the "objective" review of my fers disability application, the cartesian mind/body dualism in federal disability retirement, the mind/body bifurcation problem in federal disability retirement reviews, the quantity and quality controls of a subjective assessment to determine if a particular package of medical documentation is sufficient to meet the opm-imposed higher legal standard of review, the value of applying philosophical principles into law practice, the way to prove a psychiatric condition in a federal disability retirement case, trying to be objective in a matter considered to be mostly subjective by the office of personnel management, USPS disability retirement, western philosophy and persuasive legal arguments in an opm disability retirement claims, when "objective medical evidence" is not necessary, when the opm refuses to consider ''subjective'' evidence, when there is no way to get objective medical evidence the using of established medical diagnostic criteria may be useful, why psychiatric conditions can be sometimes more difficult to prove in the eyes of the office of personnel management? | Leave a comment »
Federal Disability Retirement: Formulating an Effective SF 3112A
The “heart of it all” is… The medical report will provide the substantive basis; a supervisor’s statement may or may not be helpful or useful at all; legal arguments will certainly place the viability of the application for Federal Disability Retirement into its proper context and arguments which touch upon the legal basis will inevitably have their weight, impact and effect upon whether one has met by a preponderance of the evidence the legal criteria required to be eligible and entitled. All of that aside, the SF 3112A — the Applicant’s Statement of Disability — is where the heart of the matter resides in preparing, formulating, and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.
If a Federal or Postal employee is unsure of what to state, how to state it, or how much to reveal and state, that becomes a problem. For, ultimately, the proper balance must be stricken — between that which is relevant as opposed to superfluous; between that which is substantive as opposed to self-defeating; and between that which is informational, as opposed to compelling. Formulation takes thought and reflection. Yes, the SF 3112A — the Applicant’s Statement of Disability — is the heart of it all.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: OPM Disability Application - SF 3112A Applicant's Statement of Disability for CSRS and FERS | Tagged: an essential tip for 3112a filling: keep in mind the requirements, attorney's legal assistance during the 3112a filling out, beware of the applicant's statement of disability, federal disability law and legal argumentation, fers disability application supervisor comments, finding the right balance in the opm disability applicant's statements, focusing on the narrative of the opm disability applicant, formulating a fers disability claims takes a big deal of effort and dedication, heart and soul of a federal employee disability application, How to write a SF 3112A Applicant's Statement of Disability, importance of using legal argumentation in your fers disability claim, legal arguments in the federal disability application, maintaining a fine balance in your statements in the applicant's statements, medical report from treating physicians for fers disability claim, medical reports in the OPM disability retirement application, narrative medical reports used in the federal disability retirement process, objectivity and legal arguments in a fers disability claim, opm disability statements made by applicant, postal supervisors and managers, SF 3112A Applicant's Statement of Disability for CSRS, SF 3112A Applicant's Statement of Disability for FERS, soundness of legal arguments used in administrative law, striving for a fair balance in sf 3112a the applicant's statements, studying your opm claim and using appropriate legal arguments, telling the medical story in the applicant's statement of disability, the applicant's control of the opm disability application and process, the applicant's medical narrative report, the best sample of a 3112a -- on that meets the basic requirements of eligibility, the limited importance of the supervisor's statements in the opm disability process, the limited power of a supervisor in the fers disability retirement process, the most important form in the federal disability retirement package: sf 3112a, the opm disability retirement applicant's errors, the supervisor's opinions during the federal disability process, tips for unrepresented opm disability applicants, what the applicant can control in the fers disability package, why the applicant's statements is such an important document in a fers disability claim | Leave a comment »