OPM Disability Retirement: Unexpected Course of Events

Expectations are a peculiar phenomena in the human mind:  it occurs through a history of past experiences; tempered by present circumstances; projected through rational evaluation and analysis of past perspectives and present conditions.  One’s record of fulfilled expectations, as against failed or unforeseen ones, portend the validity of future such thoughts.

While medical conditions themselves may not meet the criteria of an expected event, once it becomes a part of one’s existential condition, it is important to evaluate resulting and consequential events, circumstances and causal relationships in order to make plans for one’s future.  One must not ruminate about the unfortunate course of events for too long; there is further work to be done.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, medical determinations must be made as to future expectations which will impact present circumstances:  Will the condition last for a minimum of 12 months?  What are the chances of recovery from the condition such that sufficiency of rehabilitation will result in returning to work and being able to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job?  How will the agency act/react (not too much in terms of expectations should be considered on this issue)?  What can one expect in terms of a Federal Disability Retirement annuity?  And many other questions which will need to be addressed in order to bring to fore the past, project it into the future, such that decisions impacting the present can be made.

Expectations:  It is where the past, present and future coalesce in the fertile human mind for purposes of decision-making, thereby confirming Aristotle’s dictum that we are not merely animals, but rational animals with a teleological bent.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Timing the Legal Tools

In any administrative procedure, the use of legal tools and citations may be of limited efficacy for the process itself; it is, however, building a foundation for future application, and to that extent it provides a fair warning to the agency.

Inasmuch as any portion of obtaining an entitlement or meeting an eligibility requirement engages the applicant with a faceless bureaucracy — and one which recognizably is filled with non-lawyers, clerks, etc. — there is always the question as to why an attorney is necessary at the administrative level of adjudication.

The reason is simple:  the non-lawyer governmental worker, while perhaps not fully appreciative of the legal citations which may be argued in a particular case, is nevertheless aware of the consequences of failing to acknowledge the validity of such references.  Being audited and finding that a particular case worker has a high percentage of cases denied, then reversed on an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, has an impact upon the agency worker.

Furthermore, building a foundation for future reference before an Administrative Judge — where the Judge turns to the agency’s representative and asks, “Well, how about Case X, which has already been cited by the Appellant?” — can be quite effective and often short-cuts the entire process.

For Federal and Postal Workers who are attempting to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the effective use of legal tools and citations is crucial at all levels — if only to warn OPM of the consequences of having to go before an MSPB Judge for further adjudication of the case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: Legal Tools

Few disciplines and classes of artisans create their own tools.  Musicians do not fashion their own instruments; accountants do not produce calculators or computers; painters do not manufacture their own brushes.  The blacksmith does, however, form and mold his own ironworks.

Similarly, the lawyer formulates the tools upon which he crafts his arguments; for, as most Judges are lawyers themselves, and the vast majority of legislators are also attorneys, so the statutes which are issued, and the judicial opinions which are rendered, are analogously “created” by those who are members of the class identified as “lawyers”.  Once created, it is how the tools are used which makes all the difference.

In Federal Disability Retirement law, the multiple tools available must be utilized for the very purpose of their making.  Thus, application of the Bruner Presumption must be invoked where appropriate, and “stretched” to their logical extension wherever possible; the “Trevan” rule concerning SSDI approvals should be pointed out whenever it has been approved during the process of waiting for a decision on a Federal Disability Retirement application; and the restatement of the applicable legal criteria in Henderson v. OPM should be emphasized when OPM attempts to misinterpret the applicable statutory criteria in being eligible for Federal Disability Retirement as requiring a 1-to-1 ratio between medical conditions and positional duties; and multiple other legal tools.

The issue of “where” a tool was manufactured, unless poorly constructed, is rarely one of importance or relevance; rather, it is how the tool is applied which is the issue of greater import and significance.  For it is precisely the “how” and the efficacy of the utilization of a tool which results in the intended consequences of such use.

For the blacksmith, a well-fitting horseshoe; for the accountant, a tax savings; for the artist, a masterpiece; for the lawyer, a victory.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire