• Home
  • About Me
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright
  • Credentials

OPM Disability Retirement

Entries RSS | Comments RSS
  • Pages

    • About Me
    • Contact Us
    • Copyright
    • Credentials
  • Categories

    • Accommodation and Light Duty (39)
    • Advantages of Federal Disability Retirement (27)
    • Agency’s and/or Supervisor’s Actions (43)
    • Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM (43)
    • Burden of Proof (29)
    • Clarifications of Laws or Rules (160)
    • CSRS Disability (1)
    • Eligibility Criteria (18)
    • Evaluation Of Your OPM Disability Claim – How Do I Know If I Have A Strong Case? (17)
    • Fables, Stories and Analogies about CSRS and FERS Medical Retirement Benefits (63)
    • Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted (35)
    • FERS Disability (10)
    • Important Cases, Legal Updates and/or the Current Process Waiting Time (47)
    • Life after Federal Disability Retirement (21)
    • LWOP and Sick Leave in OPM Disability (12)
    • Mental/Nervous Condition (47)
    • Miscellaneous (176)
    • OPM Disability & OWCP Workers Comp Filings (44)
    • OPM Disability & SSA Social Security Disability Benefits (38)
    • OPM Disability & VA Benefits (3)
    • OPM Disability Actors (274)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Agency (52)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Applicant (76)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Attorney (50)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Doctor (51)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Human Resources Office (17)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The MSPB Administrative Judge (6)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The OPM Representatives (28)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Others (9)
      • OPM Disability Actors – The Supervisor (12)
    • OPM Disability Administrative Law (Statutory and Non-Statutory Law) (13)
    • OPM Disability and a Hostile Working Environment (10)
    • OPM Disability Application (183)
      • OPM Disability Application – SF 3112 Disability Retirement Application Package (27)
      • OPM Disability Application – SF 3112A Applicant's Statement of Disability for CSRS and FERS (62)
      • OPM Disability Application – SF 3112B Supervisor’s Statement for CSRS and FERS (9)
      • OPM Disability Application – SF 3112C Physician's Statement for CSRS and FERS (15)
      • OPM Disability Application – SF 3112D Agency Certification of Reassignment and Accommodation Efforts for CSRS and FERS (7)
    • OPM Disability Process (157)
      • OPM Disability Process – 1st Stage: OPM Disability Application (35)
      • OPM Disability Process – 2nd Stage: OPM Reconsideration Stage (28)
      • OPM Disability Process – 3rd Stage: MSPB Stage (17)
      • OPM Disability Process – 4th Stage: Petition for Full Review at the MSPB (4)
      • OPM Disability Process – 5th Stage: Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (2)
    • OPM Disability Retirement & EEOC Complaints (4)
    • OPM Medical Questionnaire (8)
    • Post-Application Issues (18)
    • Pre-Application Considerations (351)
    • Professional & Expert Witnesses (4)
    • Reasonable Medical Treatment and Compliance Issues (6)
    • Reflections of an OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer (1,458)
    • Resigning or Being Separated From a Federal Agency for Medical Problems or Other Reasons (33)
    • SF 3112 Forms (8)
    • Specific Medical Conditions (28)
    • The Job of a Federal Disability Attorney (78)
    • Theory and Practice: Tips and Strategies for a Successful Application (201)
    • U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) (20)
    • U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (73)
    • U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Disability Retirement (36)
    • Uncategorized (373)
    • When the OPM Application Is Approved (13)
    • When the OPM Application Is Denied (85)
  • Past Blogs

  • Federal Disability Retirement Attorney The right approach to filing Federal Disability Retirement claims.
    Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer Attorney profile @ Martindale.
  • Top Posts

    • OPM Accepted Medical Conditions
    • Contact Us
    • FERS/SSDI Offsets: Major Precedent-setting Case
    • OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Another "Get Through" Day
    • Back Pain and Disability Retirement for Federal Workers
    • FERS Disability Retirement: The “I” of Tomorrow
    • About Me
    • FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: The Use of Language
    • OPM Medical Retirement from Federal Government Employment: Forms, Formats and Conformity
    • OPM Disability Retirement System: The Numbness of Inaction

Important Cases Which Impact Disability Retirement Applications

Posted on March 19, 2008 by Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

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

Filed under: Application, Appeals, and Other Medical Documentation Submitted To the OPM, Clarifications of Laws or Rules, Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted, Important Cases, Legal Updates and/or the Current Process Waiting Time, Mental/Nervous Condition, OPM Disability Application - SF 3112C Physician's Statement for CSRS and FERS, The Job of a Federal Disability Attorney, U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Disability Retirement | Tagged: accommodating mental psychiatric conditions, anxiety & panic attack in the Postal Service, anxiety and depression, Arthritis, arthritis among federal employees, back pain and radiating pain along legs, Bi-polar disorder in OPM disability, Bipolar Disorder in the Postal Service, bulging discs opm disability retirement, cancer and OPM disability retirement, criterias for disability retirement opm, diabetes treatment and federal workers, disabling depression, disabling mental nervous conditions, established diagnostic criteria on mental conditions, Federal Medical Evidence of Record Program (FEDMER), federal workers disability criteria, FERS CSRS mental and/or nervous condition, help getting fers mental disability, long lwop for nervous or mental conditions, Major Depression cases in the USPS, medical evidence, mental condition in OPM disability, mental health therapist, mental or nervous disabling conditions, objective and subjective medical evidence, objective medical evidence for federal disability cases, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders, opm disability retirement process, OPM mental condition, OPM subjective methodology, Osteoarthritis, owcp and unable to return to work, panic attacks and federal disability retirement, psychiatric conditions, psychiatric disability in OPM Disability Retirement, psychiatric medical conditions, Return to Work Certification form filled by psychiatrist, return to work physical examination by occupational doctor, schizophrenia and federal disability retirement, statutes and regulations governing disability retirement law, statutory criteria for eligibility for disability, the Vanieken-Ryals case, treatment of mental illnesses, us government employee's evaluation psychiatric conditions, USPS Return to Work Certification, Vanieken-Ryals v. Office of Personnel Management, when "objective medical evidence" is not necessary, when the OPM creates its own laws | 1 Comment »

  • Other Resources for Federal and Postal Employees

    • Articles Published in the Postal Reporter
    • FAQs on OPM Disability Retirement
    • FERS Disability Attorney Profile at Lawyers.com
    • Main Website on Federal Disability Retirement
    • OPM Disability Blog
    • The Postal Service Disability Retirement Blog
  • What's New on CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement

    • eZineArticles.com Article: The 1 Year Statute of Limitations
    • Federal Disability Retirement Laws, Medical Conditions, and the Intersecting Complications with OWCP, Social Security and FERS & CSRS
    • Federal Disability Retirement: The Full Arsenal of Weapons
    • FedSmith.com Article: Revisiting "Accommodation"
    • FedSmith.com Article: Sometimes the Process is just as important as the Substance of an Argument
    • Latest PostalReporter.com Article: The Difference between 'Accommodation' used in a General Sense, and in a Legal Sense
    • MyFederalRetirement.com Article: Federal Disability Retirement Benefits for FERS & CSRS Employees
    • Understanding the Complexities of the Law
    • USPS Disability Blog: The National Reassessment Program, the Agency and the Worker
  • Seven False Myths about OPM Disability Retirement

    1) I have to be totally disabled to get Postal or Federal disability retirement.
    False: You are eligible for disability retirement so long as you are unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of your job.  Thus, it is a much lower standard of disability. 

    2) My injury or illness has to be job-related.
    False: You can get disability even if your condition is not work related.  If your medical condition impacts your ability to perform any of the core elements of your job, you are eligible, regardless of how or where your condition occurred.

    3) I have to quit my federal job first to get disability.
    False: In most cases, you can apply while continuing to work at your present job, to the extent you are able.  

    4) I can't get disability if I suffer from a mental or nervous condition.
    False: If your condition affects your job performance, you can still qualify. Psychiatric conditions are treated no differently from physical conditions.

    5) Disability retirement is approved by DOL Workers Comp.
    False: It's the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the federal agency that administers and approves disability for employees at the US Postal Service or other federal agencies.

    6) I can wait for OPM disability retirement for many years after separation.
    False: You only have one year from the date of separation from service - otherwise, you lose your right forever.

    7) If I get disability retirement, I won't be able to apply for Scheduled Award (SA).
    False: You can get a Scheduled Award under the rules of OWCP even after you get approved for OPM disability retirement.
  • Calendar

    December 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov    
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
  • Archives

    • December 2019 (6)
    • November 2019 (27)
    • October 2019 (27)
    • September 2019 (25)
    • August 2019 (27)
    • July 2019 (28)
    • June 2019 (23)
    • May 2019 (27)
    • April 2019 (26)
    • March 2019 (26)
    • February 2019 (24)
    • January 2019 (28)
    • December 2018 (27)
    • November 2018 (27)
    • October 2018 (27)
    • September 2018 (25)
    • August 2018 (27)
    • July 2018 (27)
    • June 2018 (26)
    • May 2018 (27)
    • April 2018 (22)
    • March 2018 (26)
    • February 2018 (24)
    • January 2018 (27)
    • December 2017 (26)
    • November 2017 (27)
    • October 2017 (26)
    • September 2017 (26)
    • August 2017 (27)
    • July 2017 (26)
    • June 2017 (26)
    • May 2017 (28)
    • April 2017 (25)
    • March 2017 (27)
    • February 2017 (24)
    • January 2017 (26)
    • December 2016 (29)
    • November 2016 (26)
    • October 2016 (26)
    • September 2016 (26)
    • August 2016 (27)
    • July 2016 (26)
    • June 2016 (26)
    • May 2016 (28)
    • April 2016 (26)
    • March 2016 (27)
    • February 2016 (25)
    • January 2016 (26)
    • December 2015 (27)
    • November 2015 (24)
    • October 2015 (27)
    • September 2015 (25)
    • August 2015 (26)
    • July 2015 (28)
    • June 2015 (26)
    • May 2015 (25)
    • April 2015 (25)
    • March 2015 (26)
    • February 2015 (22)
    • January 2015 (26)
    • December 2014 (27)
    • November 2014 (22)
    • October 2014 (26)
    • September 2014 (26)
    • August 2014 (26)
    • July 2014 (27)
    • June 2014 (25)
    • May 2014 (26)
    • April 2014 (26)
    • March 2014 (26)
    • February 2014 (24)
    • January 2014 (27)
    • December 2013 (25)
    • November 2013 (25)
    • October 2013 (26)
    • September 2013 (26)
    • August 2013 (27)
    • July 2013 (27)
    • June 2013 (25)
    • May 2013 (27)
    • April 2013 (26)
    • March 2013 (26)
    • February 2013 (24)
    • January 2013 (26)
    • December 2012 (26)
    • November 2012 (25)
    • October 2012 (26)
    • September 2012 (23)
    • August 2012 (27)
    • July 2012 (22)
    • June 2012 (26)
    • May 2012 (24)
    • April 2012 (25)
    • March 2012 (25)
    • February 2012 (25)
    • January 2012 (25)
    • December 2011 (26)
    • November 2011 (24)
    • October 2011 (26)
    • September 2011 (25)
    • August 2011 (27)
    • July 2011 (25)
    • June 2011 (26)
    • May 2011 (25)
    • April 2011 (25)
    • March 2011 (27)
    • February 2011 (22)
    • January 2011 (23)
    • December 2010 (25)
    • November 2010 (23)
    • October 2010 (25)
    • September 2010 (24)
    • August 2010 (25)
    • July 2010 (28)
    • June 2010 (26)
    • May 2010 (29)
    • April 2010 (30)
    • March 2010 (26)
    • February 2010 (22)
    • January 2010 (23)
    • December 2009 (20)
    • November 2009 (19)
    • October 2009 (22)
    • September 2009 (18)
    • August 2009 (18)
    • July 2009 (23)
    • June 2009 (18)
    • May 2009 (11)
    • April 2009 (11)
    • March 2009 (14)
    • February 2009 (10)
    • January 2009 (10)
    • December 2008 (8)
    • November 2008 (8)
    • October 2008 (6)
    • September 2008 (4)
    • August 2008 (9)
    • July 2008 (8)
    • June 2008 (6)
    • May 2008 (18)
    • April 2008 (20)
    • March 2008 (31)

Blog at WordPress.com. WP Designer.