Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Loss of Empathy

Does it establish the existence of empathy if a person asks after someone’s health or wellbeing?  If, in the next moment, the querying individual does something which would constitute “backstabbing“, does it negate the previous sincerity of the asking?  Is there a numbing effect upon a generation of individuals who have engaged in daily role-playing through video games which defy a conceptual designation of “virtual reality“, and for the most part serves to be the “real” reality for most?

Is empathy a lost virtue; is virtue even a meaningful concept in this day and age; and if lost and not, does it make a difference at all?  Or has human nature been consistently mean and low throughout the ages, and any romantic semblance of a Shakespearean view (paraphrasing, here) that man is the paragon of animals and somewhat akin to the angels, is merely a profoundly meaningless statement of reminiscences long past?  And what impact does such foreboding hold for individuals with medical conditions, especially in the context of employment?

For Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical condition, whether under FERS or CSRS, there is fortunately the default option of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Fortunately, such an option does not depend upon the empathetic character of fellow human beings, leaving aside other Federal or Postal employees.  Instead, Federal OPM Disability Retirement benefits are completely dependent upon “the law”.  This is as it should be, as opposed to the fickle character of individuals who sway to and from as the unstable emotions of individuals may change from day to day.  It is ultimately the law which one must cite, rely upon, and use both as a shield and a sword.

As for the lost generation of empathy: Let the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement determine the outcome of that forecast, as laws last somewhat longer than the fickle character of human beings.

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