Federal Disability Retirement Attorney: Qualia & First Person Attribution of Mental States

Private, subjective mental states are unique by self-definition; they become public knowledge only when shared with deliberate intent, revealing the inner thoughts, private conceptual pondering, and narrative voices of the subjective “I”. Pain is similar in form, in that one can mask and keep private the experiential factor of pain, just as one can remain hidden in the private thoughts one engages.

Qualia, in philosophy, has to do with the subjective experience of one’s encounter with the greater world; and the first person attribution of a mental state encompasses the “I” in the midst of that universe of contained subjectivity. The problem always is how one can and should relate the private experience when a public narrative of that subjectivity is required.

For Federal and Postal employees who must file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the problem of conveying in persuasive form and argumentation, of transversing the chasm between the “qualia” of one’s subjective mental state into the foray of medicine, diagnostic testing, clinical encounters with medical professionals, and the entire compendium of what constitutes the “objective” world, is a necessary prerequisite where the incommensurable wall must be overcome.

An effective OPM Disability Retirement application under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is like watching a gymnast on a balance beam; overstating the subjective may result in loss of that balance.  Federal employees and Postal workers who suffer from those specific medical conditions which are considered “unverifiable” through normal channels of diagnostic methodologies — Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, chronic and intractable pain, etc. — must find ways where the public description goes beyond the qualia of private mental attributes.

In many ways, we have progressed culturally; and such progressivism is found in the diminishment and near-extinguishment of that dualism between the cognitive and the physical, and this is established by the general acceptance of psychiatric conditions as being just as “valid” as physical maladies. But old haunts and biased perspectives still abound, and during such times of transition, one must still take care in how one approaches subjectivity in the wake of the yearning for objectively verifiable evidentiary components.

Like the public who watches the graceful movements of a gymnast on a balance beam, it is the roar of the crowd in appreciation one seeks, and not the gasp of disappointment when lack of balance results in a sudden and unexpected fall.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Pain and the Fallacy of Objectivity

Pain by definition is “subjective”, if by it one means that the experiential verification of the condition is uniquely possessed by the “I”, or the subject of the experience.  By contrast, that which is deemed “objective” is presumably validated by more than the possessor of the experiential condition — i.e., by third parties; by testing for the validity and verification of an event through means other than the personal narrative of a singular subject.  Yet, if verification of an experience is accepted merely by sheer volume of a collective consensus, then most scientific revolutions in advanced discoveries would never have survived.

In Federal Disability Retirement law, it is often the argument of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management that the Federal or Postal applicant has failed to provide “objective” medical evidence in presenting his or her case.  The narrative of having a condition of “chronic pain”, or “severe pain” — being “subjective” by definition — is not deemed “objective“, and therefore cannot be the valid basis alone for a Federal Disability Retirement case (or so the argument by OPM is often presented).  Even the results of an MRI will not necessarily satisfy the scrutiny of OPM; for, ultimately, an MRI can only reveal an observable abnormality — not that a person experiences “pain”.

Fortunately, there are a number of cases in law which rebut OPM in their attempt to bifurcate between “objective” and “subjective”, and such legal tools should always be cited and applied in any Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application.

While pain may indeed be subjective by definition, the objectivity of a Federal Disability Retirement application should never be based upon what OPM deems as sufficient; rather, it is the law and the long history of legal guidance by the courts which should mandate how OPM acts.  Indeed, if we let OPM’s subjective determinations rule the day, we would all be left in an existential state of pain — one which would then result in a collective consensus which may be deemed objective in nature.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Case of Fibromyalgia

Fibromyalgia is one of those medical conditions that the Office of Personnel Management systematically “targets” as a condition which is prima facie “suspect”. This is despite the fact that there are cases which implicitly “admonish” OPM from engaging in the type of arbitrary reasoning of denying a disability retirement application because they “believe” that “no objective medical evidence” has been submitted, or that the “pain” experienced (diffuse as it might be) is merely “subjective”, or that the chronicity of the pain merely “waxes and wanes”, and a host of multiple other unfounded reasonings. Yet, cases have already placed a clear boundary around such arbitrary and capricious reasonings.

A case in point, of course, is Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case, decided on November 26, 2007. In that case, it clearly circumscribes the fact that OPM can no longer make the argument that an Applicant’s disability retirement application contains “insufficient medical evidence” because of its lack of “objective medical evidence”. This is because there is no statute or regulation which “imposes such a requirement” that “objective” medical evidence is required to prove disability. As long as the treating doctor of the disability retirement applicant utilizes “established diagnostic criteria” and applies modalities of treatment which are “consistent with ‘generally accepted professional standards'”, then the application is eligible for consideration. Further, the Court went on to state that it is “legal error for either agency (OPM or the MSPB) to reject submitted medical evidence as entitled to no probative weight at all solely because it lacks so-called ‘objective’ measures such as laboratory tests.” Statues are passed for a reason: to be followed by agencies. Judges render decisions for a reason: for agencies to follow. Often, however, agencies lag behind statutes and judicial decisions. It is up the an applicant — and his or her attorney — to make sure that OPM follows the law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: Trying it Without an Attorney

I get calls all the time by people who tell me that they thought their particular Federal Disability Retirement case was a “slam dunk”; that the medical documentation was there; that everything looked like it should be approved at the first level.  Then, there are people who tell me the same thing after the second, Reconsideration denial — that he or she thought it should definitely pass through.  But law, and especially administrative law before the Office of Personnel Management, has peculiarities beyond a surface, apparent reality.  There is a process and a methodology of obtaining disability retirement. Can a federal disability attorney guarantee the success of a disability retirement application?  No.  Does an individual applicant have a better chance with the assistance of an attorney who specializes in disability retirement law?  In most cases, yes.  Aren’t there applicants who file for disability retirement, without the assistance of an attorney, who are successful?  Yes.  Should everyone who files for disability retirement hire an attorney?  Not necessarily. 

When I speak to a client, I try and place him or her on a spectrum — and on one side of that spectrum is an individual who works at a very physical job, and who has such egregious physical medical disabilities; on the other side of the spectrum is an individual who suffers from Anxiety, who works in a sedentary administrative position (please don’t misunderstand — many people who suffer from anxiety fall into the “serious” side of the spectrum, and I am in no way attempting to minimize the psychiatric disability of Anxiety).  Most people, of course, fall somewhere in the middle.  Yes, I have told many people to go and file his or her disability retirement application without an attorney.  There are those cases which are so egregious, in terms of medical conditions, that I do not believe than an attorney is necessary.  However, such instances are rare.  Thus, to the question, Should everyone who files for Federal disability retirement under FERS & CSRS hire an attorney?  Not necessarily — but in most cases, yes.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Do Psychiatric Disabilities Still Carry a Stigma?

Do Psychiatric Conditions still carry a stigma?  Does the Office of Personnel Management, or the Merit Systems Protection Board, treat Psychiatric medical conditions any differently than, say, bulging discs, degenerative disc disease, or carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.?  Is there a greater need to explain the symptoms of psychiatric conditions, in preparing an Applicant’s Statement of Disability, than conditions which can be “verified” by diagnostic testing?  Obviously, the answer should be: There is no difference of review of the medical condition by OPM or the MSPB. 

Certainly, this should be the case in light of Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM.  Neither OPM nor an MSPB Judge should be able to impose a requirement in disability retirement cases involving psychiatric disabilities, that there needs to be “objective medical evidence,” precisely because there is no statute or regulation governing disability retirement which imposes such a requirement that “objective” medical evidence is required to prove disability.  As I stated in previous articles, as long as the treating doctor of the disability retirement applicant utilizes “established diagnostic criteria” and applies modalities of treatment which are “consistent with generally accepted professional standards,” the evidence presented concerning psychiatric disabilities should not be treated any differently than that of physical disabilities.  As the Court in Vanieken-Ryals stated, OPM’s adherence to a rule which systematically demands medical evidence of an “objective” nature and refuses to consider “subjective” medical evidence, is “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.”  Yet, when preparing the Applicant’s Statement of Disability, it is always wise to utilize greater descriptive terms.  For, when dealing with medical conditions such as Bipolar disorder, Major Depression, panic attacks, anxiety, etc., one must use appropriate adjectives and “triggering”, emotional terms — if only to help the OPM representative or the Administrative Judge understand the human side of the story.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: OPM's Methodology

When the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approves a federal disability retirement application, a separate page from the approval letter will often be attached, which states the medical basis upon which the disability retirement application was approved. The separate page will often state something to the effect of: “You submitted an application for disability retirement based upon medical conditions, A, B, C & D; however, your application was approved for medical condition B only.”

The concern here, of course, is that if you are later selected to answer an OPM Medical Questionnaire asking you to re-establish your medical disability for continuation of your disability annuity some years later, that you make certain that you answer such a Medical Questionnaire based upon that very medical condition upon which you were approved. This is obviously important. Some have questioned whether or not you can appeal the approval letter based upon the fact that you believe OPM should have approved you based upon a different medical condition. In my view, this is not an appealable issue, and if you question OPM as to whether they should have considered you disabled based upon another medical condition, you may be in greater danger by OPM reversing themselves based upon a re-review of your case. It is best to leave “well enough alone”. Accept the approval letter based upon the identified medical condition, and inform your treating doctor that you may need his input in the future — to address that very medical condition for which you were approved.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Important Cases Which Impact Disability Retirement Applications

The recent case of Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, decided on November 26, 2007, cannot be overemphasized for its importance to the disability retirement process. It is, in my view, a landmark case which will greatly advance potential disability retirement applicants who base their disabilities upon psychiatric conditions. In representing my clients, I have repeatedly argued that the Office of Personnel Management’s insistence upon “objective medical evidence”, especially when it involves clients who suffer from psychiatric medical conditions (e.g., Major Depression, Anxiety, panic attacks, Bi-Polar Disorder, etc.) is not only unfair, but irrational. My past arguments were met with varying degrees of success, but the essential argument that I made over the years went something like this: Psychiatric disabilities by their inherent nature are “subjective”, because there is no diagnostic test which can objectively determine symptoms of psychiatric disabilities. Indeed, while there are multiple psychological tests which can be administered, the results are still based upon the subjective responses of the patient. Furthermore, a doctor’s clinical examination, long-term evaluation by a treating doctor, and the consistent assessment by one’s treating doctor, provide for the best and most ‘objective’ basis for a valid medical opinion. Further (my argument would often go), even physical disabilities (like a bulging disc) which can be ascertained by an MRI, cannot provide a conclusive basis to determine the extent of one’s pain or inability to perform certain tasks, for pain is by definition a “subjective” condition; there are, indeed, some who have bulging discs but have very little pain, and others who have a minimal bulging disc which completely debilitates the individual. These were rational arguments made, and while fairly persuasive when combined with case-law citations, the force of such arguments often depended upon the receptiveness of OPM’s representative or, at the Merit Systems Protection Board level, the receptiveness of the Administrative Judge.

With the opinion expressed by the Court in Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, we no longer need to rely upon the arbitrary receptiveness of an individual, for we have a firm legal basis to counter the irrational basis that OPM routinely gives in their denials based upon an objective/subjective distinction.

The Court in Vanieken-Ryals made several important declarations in their opinion:

1. That OPM can no longer make the argument that an Applicant’s disability retirement application contains “insufficient medical evidence” because of its lack of “objective medical evidence”, especially when the application is based upon psychiatric medical conditions. This, because there is no statute or regulation which “imposes such a requirement” that “objective” medical evidence is required to prove disability.

2. As long as the treating doctor of the disability retirement applicant utilizes “established diagnostic criteria” and applies modalities of treatment which are “consistent with ‘generally accepted professional standards'”, then the application is eligible for consideration.

3. It is “legal error for either agency (OPM or the MSPB) to reject submitted medical evidence as entitled to no probative weight at all solely because it lacks so-called ‘objective’ measures such as laboratory tests.”

Ultimately, for purposes of this article, which is (hopefully) read by many non-lawyers, the essence of the Vanieken-Ryals case is that it exponentially strengthens a disability retirement application based solely upon psychiatric medical disabilities. The case itself contains many other elements which provide for strong ammunition, when used wisely and with knowledge, for the disability retirement practitioner of law. It makes a strong and unequivocal statement that OPM’s and MSPB’s adherence to a rule which systematically demands for “objective” medical evidence and refuses to consider “subjective” medical evidence, is “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.” This is indeed strong language which can be used as a sword to prevail in a disability retirement case.

Persistence in the pursuit of a client’s right and entitlement to disability retirement benefits is never a lost cause, and those who have hesitated from filing for disability retirement because they suffer from purely psychiatric medical disabilities, or from disabilities which are often harder to “objectively” justify (e.g., Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, etc.) have a greater chance because of the bold legal opinion as expressed by the Court in Vanieken-Ryals.

This is a landmark case of incalculable importance and impact, which cannot be overemphasized. I have already cited the case on numerous occasions at the MSPB level, and the fact that it is a Court of Appeals decision makes it binding upon all MSPB judges. It gives greater hope for those who suffer from Psychiatric Disabilities alone, that their cases will not somehow be looked upon with less chance of approval than a person with a physical medical condition.

Other case updates: While Vanieken-Ryals was not a case that I represented, there are some case-updates from my own files which may be of some interest to my readers. All information provided is already in the public record of the written Opinion of the Judges, and there is no information revealed here that violates my attorney-client confidentiality. I wish that I could claim that I win all of my cases; I cannot. However, it is my firm belief that persistence in the pursuit of a client’s disability retirement application is never a lost cause, and here are three cases which reinforce my philosophy:

1. Tucker v. OPM (DA-844E-07-0314-I-1) The Office of Personnel Management kept denying Ms. Tucker’s disability retirement application. This case was finally won at the Hearing level. However, the Office of Personnel Management filed a Petition for Review. I responded with — among other arguments — the fact that the Office of Personnel Management failed to make any legal arguments showing that the Hearing Judge committed any legal errors. The Full Board rejected OPM’s Petition and affirmed the decision in my favor. No further appeals have been filed. I am happy for my client that after so many years, she will now get her disability retirement. Persistence in rebutting OPM’s attempt to reverse a Hearing Judge’s decision is never a lost cause.

2. Hartsock-Shaw v. OPM (PH-844E-06-0658-I-1) This one is the converse of the previous one, in that the Hearing Judge initially affirmed OPM’s denial of my client’s disability retirement application. I filed a Petition for Review, because I believed the Judge was wrong in not applying the Bruner Presumption in this case. The Full Board vacated the Initial Decision and Remanded the case back to the Hearing Judge, requiring further testimony on the issue of whether the Bruner Presumption should have been applied. We were able to factually prove that the circumstantial evidence necessitated the finding that my client was removed for her medical inability to perform her job, even though there was no final letter of removal issued by the Postal Service that we could find. The Judge sided with us, reversed her prior decision, and granted my client her disability retirement benefits. Persistence paid, and persistence in the pursuit of a disability retirement claim is never a lost cause.

3. Heiter v. OPM (AT-0831-07-0435-I-1) This is an interesting case. It has to do with a client who lost his disability retirement benefits because he tried to go to work for Federal Express. He was being punished for trying. One would think that a disability retirement annuitant would be commended and praised for trying — but, no, because he applied for, got the job with, and then quit, a job with Federal Express, he was deemed to have been ‘less than honest’ for having retired on disability from a Postal Job, and therefore OPM cut off his disability retirement benefits. We went to Hearing on the matter; the doctor testified unequivocally that he couldn’t do the job — neither the Federal Express one nor his prior Postal job — but he couldn’t fault his patient for having tried. OPM made a big deal about the fact that my client periodically went bowling. The Judge ruled in OPM’s favor. I filed a Petition for Full Review. The Board reversed the Initial Decision, and reinstated my client’s disability retirement annuity.

Here again, persistence pays, and persistence in pursuit of a disability claim is never a lost cause.

I am an attorney who specializes in representing Federal and Postal employees to obtain and retain disability retirement benefits. In pursuing one‘s entitlement to disability retirement benefits, one must always take the long-term perspective, and pursue that right with aggressiveness and persistence. It is an investment for one‘s future, and it is important to pursue your future investment aggressively, and to sustain your investment for a long time into the future.

For more information, contact me in one of these ways:

• View my website at www.FederalDisabilityLawyer.com
• Email me at federal.lawyer@yahoo.com
• Call me at 1-800-990-7932

 

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire