Even assuming good faith, the application of a manufactured legal criteria can lead to a harm which can be irreversible. The consequence of a Federal or Postal employee relying upon a mis-stated, non-existent legal criteria can potentially result in simply raising one’s hands in frustration, as a sign of futility, and giving up on the process of attempting to pursue a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.
David Hume’s philosophical argument concerning causality and the fact that, because there is no “necessary connection” between two objects which meet, which result in one object “causing” the movement or sequential effect of the second object, may be a technically ingenious analysis of an intellectual discourse. In the “real world”, however, when two objects collide, there are causal consequences.
Similarly, in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, when the Office of Personnel Management requires that one submit “objective evidence” to justify the medical doctor’s conclusions of disability, what the Office of Personnel Management is requiring is a “necessary connection” which does not exist in “the law”. Years of clinical examinations; notations of progressive deterioration; limited flexion and mobility; consistent complaints of pain; the aggregate of such complaints in and of itself constitutes evidence — but of course OPM ignores such evidence as being merely “subjective“.
Just as Hume’s requirement of a necessary connection violates the pragmatic standards applicable in the “real world”, so OPM’s requirement of “objective medical evidence” betrays the legal criteria in a Federal Disability Retirement application. Fighting the misapplication of a non-existent legal criteria is like denying a negative, however; it can be done, but you must use the law as a sword, and not merely as a shield.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) | Tagged: attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, cases where opm disability specialists try to create case laws, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, Federal Disability, federal disability lawyer, federal disability retirement, FERS disability lawyer, FERS disability retirement, fighting a misapplication of a non-existent legal criteria in opm medical claims, if the opm specialist misinterprets opm disability law, interpretation of federal disability law, misinterpretation or misapplication of OPM disability laws, nationwide representation of federal employees, objective and subjective factors in your federal disability claim, objective and subjective medical evidence, OPM disability retirement, opm's non-existent legal criteria, opm's objective and subjective federal disability retirement computations, owcp disability retirement, Postal disability, postal service disability retirement, statutory criteria for eligibility for disability, the statutes and regulations of administrative law, USPS Disability, USPS disability retirement, when the OPM creates its own laws, when the opm misinterprets federal disability law in your own disability claim, when the opm refuses to consider ''subjective'' evidence | Leave a comment »
