Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Extensive Evidence

When first encountering the vastness of the sea, the young child pointed to it and said to his father with a breathless sense of wonderment and awe.  “It’s like a big swimming pool,” the child said.  “It won’t taste like one, though.  And do you see the waves?”  The boy stood in silence.

The mystery of the world, its infinite puzzlement, in contrast to man’s vain attempt to artificially recreate a semblance of its beauty, revealed itself to the child’s uncorrupted eyes.  Only a child whose first encounter with creation could see the true nature of being; the rest of us, compromised by age, cynicism and self-indulgence, would forever be blind to its breathless scope of beauty.

Such a slice of life story is meant to illustrate the distinction between substantive extensiveness, and a smaller version thereof, in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Volume of evidence (i.e., likened to “the ocean”) can be persuasive; yet, if it is merely an elaborate pool, then lack of substance may undermine its own efficacy.  On the other hand, a short but “to-the-point” medical report may be very effective, precisely because it is exactly what it was meant to be:  without much fluff, the doctor is unequivocal in his or her medical opinion.

The point throughout is that there is never a science in the compilation of proof in formulating an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.  Or, to put it another way:  don’t try to recreate something which cannot be copied; sometimes, the evidence is what it is, and how one presents the evidence will make all the difference.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: The Fallacy of Objective Medical Evidence

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has already addressed the issue of the Office of Personnel Management’s unjustified adherence to making a distinction between “objective medical evidence” as opposed to what they deem and declare to be “subjective” evidence.

The distinction has no statutory basis or authority, but OPM continues to make the same, repetitive and tiring arguments concerning such a distinction.  Of course, when there exists a plenitude of “objective” evidence, then OPM will often sidestep such evidence and argue that it wasn’t “compelling” enough.  

The fallacy of “objective” versus “subjective” becomes most apparent, of course, when it addresses the issue of “pain”.  Pain is by definition a subjective state of experiential encounter.  If there is any “objective” evidence of pain, it is a misunderstanding of what constitutes such evidence.  Thus, for instance, one might point to an MRI showing a multi-level disc degeneration from L3-L4, L4-L5, etc., and state, “There, we have objective evidence of pain.”

Not quite.  What you merely have, if one stops and considers it, is simply a parallel set of observable facts:  A:  an image which reveals an abnormality of the spine, combined with B, which has an individual who conveys a sensation of pain.  However, inasmuch as there are many people who have similar or worse states of “A” (multi-level disc degeneration), but go through life without any apparent pain, one cannot therefore argue that A is “objective” evidence of “B”.  There may be a parallel correlation to be made, but no causal connection.  

Regardless, the Federal Circuit Court has already declared OPM to be in error for making such a distinction.  However, despite the law, OPM continues to deny Federal Disability Retirement applications under FERS & CSRS by adhering to the false distinction.  Imagine that.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: RIF

If a person is separated from Federal Service pursuant to a Reduction-in-Force, can he file an application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS?  As with all such questions, “It Depends”.  If a person has a medical disability prior to the separation from service, and the doctor will state that prior to the separation, the Federal or Postal employee could no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of the job, then the answer is that he has a Federal Disability Retirement case.  Whether from a RIF or for some other reasons is ultimately irrelevant; the point is that one must ultimately show that prior to separation from Federal Service — any type of separation — the connection between the medical condition and the type of job one has, must be made.  Remember, further, that during the time of Federal Employment, if a person was receiving OWCP partial disability payments for an hour, two hours, three hours, per week or per day, that is further evidence that the Federal or Postal employee was unable to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job.  For, as with any full-time Federal sector job, being able to work 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, is part of the essential element of such a job.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire