Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 26, 2007, has an interesting statement from the deciding Judge, which can be used as “firepower” for anyone who is attempting to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits (note of caution: for lay non-attorneys, be careful in how you use it in trying to convince a lay, non-attorney OPM representative): “In addition, neither the MSPB nor OPM discussed the content of Dr. [ ] or [ ] evidence in any meaningful way, which further demonstrates that it was not properly considered. OPM, for example, resorted to a laundry list of “objective” tests and documents that the medical evidence did not contain rather than examining the evidence and evaluating what it did contain.”
Interpretation: If OPM’s argument is to focus upon what is missing, they have violated their primary Agency/administrative responsibility — that of evaluating, in some “meaningful” manner, the medical evidence which was in fact submitted. This can be used effectively for the Reconsideration Stage by diplomatically pointing out the error of OPM, and citing Vanieken-Ryals, and highlighting the relevant portions of the medical documentation previously submitted.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM, Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted, Important Cases, Legal Updates and/or the Current Process Waiting Time | Tagged: back pain and radiating pain along legs, case law citation in federal disabilities cases, disability laws for postal workers, disability retirement for postal clerks, disability retirement opm, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, federal court decisions in OPM disability cases, federal employee disability compensation, federal workers disability, FERS disability lawyer, legal services for federal employees, letter carriers disability retirement, Massachusetts OPM disability retirement, medical benefits for nsf employees, medical evidence, medical reports in the OPM disability retirement application, MSPB disability attorney, nationwide representation of federal employees, objective and subjective medical evidence, objective medical evidence for federal disability cases, office of personnel management retirement, one important legal interpretation of the opm's vanieken case, OPM decision making is not 100% rational or objective, OPM disability attorney, OPM Federal Government Disability Decisions, OPM Reconsideration Stage, pennsylvania opm disability retirement, physical inability removal, postal workers owcp rights attorney, representing federal employees from any us government agency, representing federal employees in and outside the country, statutes and regulations governing disability retirement law, the non-attorney opm representative, the opm must evaluate medical documentation, the Vanieken case, the Vanieken-Ryals case, Vanieken-Ryals v. Office of Personnel Management, when "objective medical evidence" is not necessary, when non-attorneys attempt to use case law, when the opm focuses on documentation you didn't submit, workers comp distribution clerks | Leave a comment »
