OPM Disability Retirement: The Non-nexus

Meeting an adequacy test may constitute sufficiency for some purposes, but not for others.  Thus, it may be enough in completing an FMLA form to have a diagnosis, along with answers to other questions on WH-380-E.  But mere identification of a medical condition via a diagnosis, along with a description of symptomatologies will not be enough to meet the sufficiency test in a Federal Disability Retirement application.

People often assume that having a medical condition in and of itself sufficiently explains the severity of one’s condition, and any implied “blank spaces” can be filled in by the mere existence of such a medical condition.  But Federal Disability Retirement, whether under FERS or CSRS, filed through, reviewed by, and approved or disapproved by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical condition itself prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties.

As such, the identification and description of a medical condition fails to comply with the adequacy standards in proving eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  One must establish, through the conduit of a medical professional, the “nexus” or “connection” between one’s identified medical condition and the inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.

The weight of the proof is upon the Federal or Postal applicant.

The foundation of such evidence begins with the identified medical condition, but in and of itself, it is a non-nexus — until it is squarely placed in the context of one’s official position and the duties required by one’s duties.  Thus, the non-nexus become the nexus-point when combined with the identification and description of one’s positional duties.

It is this realization of the step-by-step sequence of proof which constitutes adequacy and sufficiency of evidence, and one of which the Federal or Postal applicant for OPM Disability Retirement benefits must be aware.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: Standards

The existence of a standard constitutes an irrelevancy if the application of it is based upon an unknowable, incalculable methodology.  Standards represent a paradigm which, if implemented, provide for stability and consistency, precisely because one can rely upon the same application in all instances, and indeed, that is what is often defined as “fairness”.

Thus, in sports — if the referee makes all calls based upon a known standard, there is very little to argue with respect to the “rules”; one may, of course, challenge the interpretation of the “facts” and charge that the referee is blind and did not see the play as reality reflected; but no one can argue the minutiae of the standard itself.  In society, and in a civilization governed by rules and accepted procedures of administration, if a standard is disagreed upon, then a democratic method of change is normally considered an appropriate methodology of redefining the lines previously demarcated by the “old” standard.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is assumed that the standard which would constitute “fair play” will be one of “preponderance of the evidence”, but the actual implementation of such a legal standard will necessarily depend upon whether the Case Worker at OPM actually understands what that standard means.

It is, ultimately, a low civil “bar” to meet; and when a denial is rendered, the language contained within the denial will often reveal the extent of comprehension on the part of the OPM Case Worker.  Pointing a misapplication of the standard is sometimes a useful tool in taking the Federal Disability Retirement case to the next level — the Reconsideration Stage of the process — but unduly focusing upon the mistakes of the previous Case Worker is often a waste of time.

Balance is the key; application of the correct standard is vital to the working efficiency of a bureaucracy; pointing out a misapplication is why attorneys exist.  They are, ultimately, technicians of written standards.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Legal Sufficiency Test

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, one is required to meet the legal sufficiency of the eligibility criteria as set forth by statute, expanded by regulations and clarified by cases which have come before Administrative Judges at the Merit Systems Protection Board.  

Whether one meets the legal sufficiency test in the presentation of medical and other supporting evidence, is the area of disputable territory, which is why the entirety of the administrative process has been put in place.  From the perspective of the Office of Personnel Management, they are mandated to review each case and make a determination as to legal sufficiency.  Often, however, they are not concerned with, ignore, or otherwise remain oblivious to, the legal standard of proof, of whether the applicable criteria has been met by a standard of “preponderance of the evidence”. Indeed, in many denial letters, they have instead indicated a much high standard of review, including whether the evidence is “compelling”, or whether the medical condition “prevents the Federal or Postal employee from coming to work altogether”.  

Unfortunately, the first two (2) stages of the process — the initial application stage, then the Reconsideration Stage — is reviewed by the Office of Personnel Management, with the potential for mis-application of the proper burden of proof.  

Legal sufficiency is not a standard which is applied until it enters into the “legal arena” — that of the Merit Systems Protection Board before an Administrative Judge.  Because of this, it is often a good idea to cite legal opinions in order to “apprise” the Office of Personnel Management of the applicable legal criteria, and to remind them of what extent of evidence meets the legal sufficiency test.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire