Federal Disability Retirement Attorney: The Second, Reconsideration Stage

It is not a reflection upon the validity of one’s medical condition; a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management can mean multiple things, not the least of which may include:  insufficient proof failing to rise to the level of satisfying the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Federal Disability Retirement applications are compiled in a myriad of manners; yes, the standard forms themselves tend to compel a certain semblance of conformity, but ultimately the strength of a case will depend upon the supportive documentation attached, and here is “the rub”:  there still exists the “human element” in the reviewing analysis of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Yes, certain sets of legal criteria are applied (but who and how are they interpreted in their application?); and while satisfaction of the legal criteria is supposed to be determined by the general principle of “preponderance of the evidence“, who and what complies with meeting such a standard?  How is such satisfaction determined?  Such questions, of course, imply a human element in the administrative process of an OPM Disability Retirement review, and whether we like it or not, reveals an underlying connection to imperfection and fallibility.

There is no mathematical algorithm of mechanistic applications which will completely correct the underlying problems inherent in human review within the context of a bureaucratic process.  Fortunately, however, the process itself contains a self-corrective device: different stages and levels of review, which allows for the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker to provide additional supportive documentation in order to reinforce and strengthen one’s Federal Disability Retirement case.

There are limitations, however, and that is why “corrective action” at the Second, Reconsideration Stage of the administrative process of Federal Disability Retirement is just that — it is to “correct” the mistakes, lapses and inherent lack identified in the original Federal Disability Retirement packet.  The “limitations” are set by law, and are determined by how one characterizes one’s medical conditions in the Statement of Disability as perpetuated on SF 3112A.

Care should always be taken, of course, in the initial preparation of a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, and before it is forwarded through one’s agency to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  But in the end, one must recognize that the entirety of the administrative process is one which involves multiple stages of a bureaucratic procedure, and the Second, Reconsideration Stage is merely another level of self-regulating refinement to ensure that the human element, including mistakes and misapplication of the law, is expunged to the extent possible, and instead, that the objective application of the law is uniformly dispensed in order to reach a statistically acceptable algorithm of fairness and impartial determination.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Responding to Stupidity

Sometimes, one’s initial reaction in a situation — professional setting, social discourse, event gathering, etc. — requires a momentary pause; and it is precisely that couple of seconds of gathering one’s thoughts which saves one from further putting fuel upon a potential fire.

Perhaps you have every right to have responded with a drip of sarcasm; or others would have approved of the lashing back; and still others would say that the response was appropriate and deservedly given.  But the greater question should always be:  how effective was the response; did it evoke the necessary end; and for whose benefit was the aggressive retort given — for the benefit of truth, or for one’s own satisfaction?

In a professional context, of course, it is probably never appropriate to respond in an unprofessional way, if merely by definition alone.  Similarly, in a FERS or CSRS Federal Disability Retirement context, when one receives a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there are statements made — whether one pertaining to mis-application or mis-statement of the law; or perhaps a wrong reference to a medical report; or even more egregious, a selective use of a statement from a medical report or record taken out of context — which can deservedly provoke a response involving sarcasm, a deluge of epithets, or worse, a barrage of ad hominem attacks — and in each case, it would be neither appropriately given, nor proper in a professional sense.

Fortunately, paper presentations and paper responses have the advantage of time over social discourse and person-to-person contact.

Holding one’s breath and counting 3 seconds, or 10, or perhaps an eternity, is an effective way of avoiding catastrophe.  Writing a diatribe of what one wants to say, then trashing it, is also acceptable.  On the other hand, beware of that “send” button; and, moreover, never push that “send to all” button.

That would indeed be unprofessional.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Logical Fallacies

The problem with logical fallacies is that the people who make them rarely recognize such errancy (otherwise they wouldn’t repeatedly make them), and further, are often the same people who refuse to recognize them even if it is kindly pointed out.

For example:  In a Federal Disability Retirement case, when the doctor’s report clearly and unequivocally points out that the Federal employee’s medical condition is “permanent”, one would logically infer from such a statement that the condition therefore will last a minimum of 12 months (the legal requirement in a FERS or CSRS Federal Disability Retirement case), and therefore would satisfy the legal requirement concerning that particular issue.

However, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will often fail to make such an inference, and claim that the legal requirement that one’s medical condition must “last a minimum of 12 months” has not been satisfied.

Now, one essentially has three (3) choices in responding to OPM’s claim at the Reconsideration Stage of the process (or, if made a second time with a denial at the Reconsideration Stage, then to the Administrative Judge at the MSPB):  (1)  Ignore the logical fallacy, (2) Argue that OPM has made the logical fallacy and failed to make the correct inference, or (3) Have the issue restated in any updated medical documentation.

Of the 3, the last is probably the preferable, if only because one should expect that any failure to recognize such an obvious inference will likely reoccur again within the same organization (the U.S. Office of Personnel Management), and therefore clarity of statement (or restatement) would be the most effective course of action.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Someone Else’s Argument

Have you ever sat with company at a dinner table, and engaged in a conversation where it appears as if you are continuing someone else’s conversation?  Or your presence is merely a substitute for an extension of a previous debate or discussion?  Where a topic is brought up, and immediately a barrage of critical attacks — of arguments you have never made, and of statements you don’t recall disseminating (and where this is only 5 minutes into the salad and you’ve barely tasted the first glass of wine)?

The problem with unfinished business is that the transference of what one wanted to say is normally unloaded upon the wrong subject.  Conversations, debates, forums of intellectual exercises in linguistic battles — it is a rare person who has been able to convey the full force of one’s collective thoughts and beliefs on the matter, and it is more often the case that one leaves with the regretful remorse of, “I wish I had brought that point up…”  But rarely do second chances present themselves in a satisfactory follow-up forum; unless you are the unfortunate object for an unexpected dinner invitation.

In responding to a denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the applicant — through his or her Federal Disability Retirement attorney — needs to understand that the person who issues the denial will not be the same person who will review any additional submissions or legal arguments at the Reconsideration Stage.

It will be reviewed, in legal parlance, de novo.  As such, while the basis of the denial as issued by the Caseworker at OPM at the First Level should be taken into consideration, one should approach the case in light of the following question: To what extent will the Reconsideration Branch care as to the original basis of the denial of the first caseworker?  If it is being reviewed de novo, the approach should be to go over all of the elements — and to reinforce and amend those weak points, some of which may overlap what the first caseworker pointed out, others which may not.

It may not be the best approach to argue to a dinner guest who wasn’t present at the first round of arguments; the points you are trying to make may not be heard because the bell has already rung, and the fighter in the second round has been replaced with someone upon whom you have never previously landed a punch.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire