Federal Worker Disability Retirement: The Disappointment of a Denial

A Denial Letter from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management quashes the Federal or Postal employee’s plans for the future, which includes an ability to secure a stream of income, to have the recuperative period in which to recover from a progressively deteriorating medical condition, and generally to be able to “move on” in life.  As all rejections have a negative impact upon a person — in terms of emotional, psychological as well as practical consequences — so a denial letter from OPM is seen as a rejection of a compendium of submitted proof concerning a Federal Disability Retirement application.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, one becomes completely and totally involved in the gathering, compiling and submission of the documentation, statements, narratives and records in order to “prove” that one is eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Such totality of involvement often betrays an ability to remain objective in a case; for, by definition, self-involvement diminishes the ability of an individual to be able to step outside of one’s self, and to evaluate the effectiveness of an endeavor apart from the subjective perspective which everyone brings to bear upon a project, issue, work product, etc. But objectivity is important, because an uninvolved, detached assessment of a Federal Disability Retirement application evaluates the viability of a Federal Disability Retirement packet without the concerns already indicated — those emotional, psychological and practical consequences which form a part of a person’s being.  That is why having an advocate or legal representation is an integral part of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Rationality Still Exists

One may well disagrees with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on its decision to deny a Federal Disability Retirement application, and yet find a rational basis for its denial.  Indeed, the fact that OPM may offer some rationality to its denial, does not mean that they are correct in their decision.  Often, there is a misunderstanding as to what “rational” behavior consists of.

On a recent Sunday morning talk show, a couple of political pundits were proposing the idea that certain hard-line regimes were not acting “rationally”.  The problem with such an analysis is that one assumes that if an individual or a country fails to act within certain universally-accepted normative behavior, that such actions constitute “irrational” conduct.  That is simply not true.

First of all, rationality — which finds its foundation in logic, whether propositional or syllogistic — depends upon the major and minor premises advanced.  Thus, if the major premise entails a person or country that cares for the welfare of his neighbor or its citizenry, then the logical conclusion may well be one which encapsulates rationality — of acting to protect its people, to safeguard human rights, etc.  On the other hand, if the major premise begins with the primary assertion of retaining authority and absolute power, then the conclusion would involve shooting or massacring its countrymen.  The latter logical trail is no less “rational” than the former. Such a mistake in defining and understanding the concept of “rationality” is often found in all areas of life.

Thus, in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS or CSRS, the fact that there has been evidence of “irrational” behavior on the part of those parties involved in the administrative process, should not result in a conclusion that the process is “arbitrary” or dependent upon some non-legal criteria.

Ultimately, all human endeavors embrace some semblance of rationality.  While one may disagree with the analytical thought-processes of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which often strays far beyond what the law requires and allows for, nevertheless, one can recognize the rational analytical procedures used in every denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS or CSRS — albeit, one in which radical jumps from premise-to-conclusion with gaping chasms of generous implications may have to be provided, in order to be able to say that such argumentation incorporated a rational basis of explanatory analysis.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire