Recent decisions issued by the Full Board of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board — specifically, Henderson v. OPM, decided on January 31, 2012, reestablishes the two general standards of applicable evidentiary approaches in proving a Federal Disability Retirement case, whether under FERS or CSRS. Whether or not the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will “comply” with the applicable standards as set forth by the MSPB is another question.
Often, the “trickle-down” effect of a legal opinion can take years to accomplish — and by that time, further refinements by the courts and by the MSPB may have made such legal opinions moot, irrelevant or otherwise restrictive in its practical application, anyway. For the time being, however, the two legal approaches can be generally stated thus: One must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence in all Federal Disability Retirement cases, either (A) That certain specific medical conditions prevent one from performing certain specific essential elements of one’s job (somewhat like a 1 – 1 correspondence, or more generally, a medical opinion showing that medical condition X prevents job duties Y because of Z) or (B) as stated previously in Bruner and multiple other cases, there is an “inconsistency” between one’s medical condition (or multiplicity of medical conditions) and the type of positional duties one must engage in to perform the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job.
The former criteria to satisfy may be deemed “particularized”; the latter may be seen as a more “generalized” approach. While there is certainly a conceptual distinction between the two, in pragmatic terms, such a distinction may be without too much difference, if only because doctors will often go back and forth between the two approaches, anyway, in writing a medical narrative report.
The conceptual distinction is not as apparent as one between “explicit” and “implicit”, but certainly the former approach encapsulates a greater specificity of detailing a connection between X and Y, whereas the latter requires the reader or reviewer (i.e., OPM or the Administrative Judge) to think through and analyze the entirety of the issue. But that life would not be so complicated.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Federal Disability Judge-Made Decisions Quoted | Tagged: applicant preponderance of evidence burden in federal employees, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, condition that prevents to perform the essential functions, conditions that prevent performing the essential elements of your fed job, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, disability retirement with the federal government, essential elements of jobs, Federal Disability, federal disability retirement, federal disability retirement evolving or biological laws, fers disability cases are become even more complex because of evolving case laws, FERS disability retirement, Henderson v OPM 109 MSPR 529 (2008), Henderson v. OPM, legal representation for injured federal workers, legal standards must be met during the opm disability process, misunderstanding or misinterpretation opm disability legal standards, nationwide representation of federal employees, OPM 109 MSPR 529 2008 HendersonOPM, opm disability law and the preponderance of evidence concept, opm disability legal standards not explained in opm disability application, OPM disability retirement, owcp disability retirement, Postal disability, postal service disability retirement, preponderance of evidence concept in opm disability law, preponderance of the evidence documents, preponderance of the evidence needed to get through a mspb disability stage, proving that your medical condition also affects you outside work, the evolving legal standards in fers disability retirement laws, the evolving nature of opm disability law, type of legal standard that applies to federal employee disability retirement, using legal standards to win a federal disability claim, USPS disability retirement | Leave a comment »