OPM Disability Retirement Attorney: The Quality of Input

We often forget that the quality, validity and accuracy of conclusions produced by computers will depend upon the input of information provided.  Thus, predictability of future weather forecasts are contingent upon present information selected, and the computational analysis resulting in the future paradigm is founded upon current constructs, analyzed through the cumulative data previously provided, with a dash of witch’s brew and a genuflection of hope.  In other words, the trash produced results from the trash collected; a rather self-evident tautology of sorts.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the issue of what information to provide, the amount of documentation, the precise wording selected, and the cumulative historical and current data introduced, will determine the statistical ratio of increased chance of success versus the possibility of an initial denial.

Receiving a denial from OPM is a down heartening experience, to put it mildly.  Expectations are that the subjective pain or psychiatric stresses which one experiences, will immediately be recognized and become translated into a societal benefit through a monetary annuity, especially as Federal Disability Retirement is an employment benefit offered for all FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset employees in the Federal system, and upon proof and sufficient information and documentation provided, one becomes eligible for the benefit.

The difference between preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, on the one hand, and computational analysis of information in other sectors of information processing, on the other, is that an intermediate human factor is present.

All Federal Disability Retirement applications are reviewed, scrutinized and evaluated for sufficiency by someone at OPM, and it is this very human element which remains the “X factor” in all Federal OPM Disability Retirement applications.  What can be done about it?  It is simply a reality which must be taken into account, processed and accounted for.  While bureaucratic and ultimately a rather depersonalized process, it is nevertheless an administrative system which must be faced.

It is as old as the ageless adage of yore, attributed to Isaac Newton:  What goes up must come down; or, what information is provided, is the basis of conclusions reached, and it is the quality of information in culling together a Federal Disability Retirement application which is paramount in achieving success.

 

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Legal Sufficiency Test

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, one is required to meet the legal sufficiency of the eligibility criteria as set forth by statute, expanded by regulations and clarified by cases which have come before Administrative Judges at the Merit Systems Protection Board.  

Whether one meets the legal sufficiency test in the presentation of medical and other supporting evidence, is the area of disputable territory, which is why the entirety of the administrative process has been put in place.  From the perspective of the Office of Personnel Management, they are mandated to review each case and make a determination as to legal sufficiency.  Often, however, they are not concerned with, ignore, or otherwise remain oblivious to, the legal standard of proof, of whether the applicable criteria has been met by a standard of “preponderance of the evidence”. Indeed, in many denial letters, they have instead indicated a much high standard of review, including whether the evidence is “compelling”, or whether the medical condition “prevents the Federal or Postal employee from coming to work altogether”.  

Unfortunately, the first two (2) stages of the process — the initial application stage, then the Reconsideration Stage — is reviewed by the Office of Personnel Management, with the potential for mis-application of the proper burden of proof.  

Legal sufficiency is not a standard which is applied until it enters into the “legal arena” — that of the Merit Systems Protection Board before an Administrative Judge.  Because of this, it is often a good idea to cite legal opinions in order to “apprise” the Office of Personnel Management of the applicable legal criteria, and to remind them of what extent of evidence meets the legal sufficiency test.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire