Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Expectation of a Rational Basis

Giving a “reason” is the basis of rationality.  In some sense, such a statement is merely a tautology, a redundancy in propositional logic (as pointed out by Wittgenstein), or what Kant had termed as an analytic a priori statement, where the subject (“reason”) is essentially identical to the object (“rationality”) in definitional terms.  But it is precisely the providing of a reason which forms the proper basis for proceeding in a rational manner.

Thus, if a X states that it will rain today, the follow-up query might be:  “Why do you believe that?”  If X answers, “Because I say so,” such a “reason” would not be an acceptable basis to act upon, precisely because it is neither a valid reason nor a basis of rationality.  Contrast that to the following:  “Because the national weather service, after an extensive study of the weather patterns for the past two weeks, has concluded that there is a 97% chance of rain today.”  Now, one may argue that predictions concerning the weather are notoriously unreliable to begin with; but nevertheless, the latter forms a basis for proceeding in a rational manner, while the former gives us no such foundation.

Similarly, in all sectors of one’s life, one has an expectation of giving and receiving “reasons” for which to act upon.  In a Federal Disability Retirement case, we are expected to provide reasons for why a Federal employee or Postal worker is “eligible” for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Conversely, it is a “reasonable” expectation to receive a “reason” when a Federal Disability Retirement application is denied at any stage of the process.  Templates used by OPM will often only present the most superficial of reasons; and some reasonings as proposed by OPM may be self-contradictory.

In the end, whatever the reasons given, the Federal or Postal Disability Retirement applicant must respond with reasons why OPM is wrong, or provide a rational basis for a difference of opinions.  But that is another matter for a different blog altogether — the very issue of “opinions” and what should be the foundation of a valid one.  For, after all, we each of us possess them, and a scant few make much of a difference.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Bureaucratized Process

One cannot expect any entity, organization, or group of individuals to reinvent the wheel for each product, service or response; streamlining and repetitive conformity of a product, issuance or completion of a case is the way of the world; it is how the Model T became a successful capitalistic venture; it is how China dominates the world of marketing.  But in the world of Due Process, one cannot formulate a mass production of effective advocacy without trampling upon the rights of an individual.

Thus, on both sides of the process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, each case must be responded to in accordance with the specific, unique facts as constrained by the individual circumstances.

Conversely, one should expect — and demand of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — that something more than a mere template of a response should be issued, after a careful and thorough review of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

If a FERS or CSRS Disability Retirement application is approved by OPM, then of course one can expect merely a letter of approval which is identical to thousands of others.  If denied, however, the denial letter should reflect a careful, thorough and individualized letter, reflecting the scrutiny of one’s particular OPM Disability Retirement packet.

Anything less would be to trample upon one’s due process rights as a Federal or Postal employee.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Expectations

One would expect that there would be a correlative input of effort on the part of the Office of Personnel Management, something like a 1-to-1 ratio of effort reflecting the amount of care put into formulating, preparing, and submitting a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, with the ratio being met by a corresponding amount of effort on the part of OPM.

If only for the sake of appearance; to give some justification, some acknowledgement of the medical reports submitted; of the time expended in preparing the Applicant’s Statement of disability, etc.

One would expect — or at least, should expect, in a denial letter issued by the Office of Personnel Management, enough of an indicator that the OPM Representative reviewed all of the medical reports, and attempted to remain objective.  Yet, more often than not, a mere paragraph is issued, with a great percentage of that paragraph a regurgitation of a template from multiple other decisions.

Expectations are often nothing more than an imaginary line where one perceives a professional standard to be; but, more often than not, only to have the expectation set at a standard of performance too high to achieve.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Great Expectations

The title of this blog, borrowed (of course) from Dickens’ great novel, refers to the contrast between the reality of X and the mental projection of what should be, in the mind of an individual.

What does this have to do with filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS?  When an application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS is carefully prepared, meticulously gathered, painfully delineated, and thoughtfully prepared, one has the (logical) expectation that, when it is reviewed and evaluated by the Office of Personnel Management, that a certain minimal level of intellectual discourse would be engaged in.

In other words, it should not be an unrealistic expectation that, if it is denied or disapproved, that the person who is writing the letter of denial would provide some fundamental delineation of reasons; some intellectual discussion addressing certain aspects of the Federal Disability Retirement packet; even (God forbid) a revelation of some logical discourse with a legally viable basis in making an argument.

Alas, such an expectation would be too much to bear.  The great chasm between the reality of the process and the expectation which one has, is one which will lead only to disappointment.  If a denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application comes, it is a rare event that the Office of Personnel Management engages in any justifiable discussion.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire