Misnomers and the OPM’s Disability, Reconsideration & Appeals Division

The problem with misnomers is not just the inaccuracy of designation which is either explicitly or implicitly conveyed, but the unintended consequences of the string of reactions and responses which can occur as a result thereof.  Sometimes, interpretive mistakes occur purely on a subjective basis; in which case it is not truly a case of a misnomer, but rather merely the misunderstanding by the recipient of the information.  Other times, a word or designation can be open to multiple meanings, where reasonable people can differ on the inferences to be made.

For Federal and Postal employees who have filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal Service employee is under FERS or CSRS (such acronyms have specific, esoteric meanings only to Federal or Postal employees, and as such, cannot constitute an objective misnomer, but rather a potentially subjective one), the complexity of the administrative and bureaucratic process can result in the failure to recognize and properly respond to various misnomers throughout the process.

For example, when a Federal Disability Retirement case is assigned to an Administrative Specialist at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and one receives a letter informing the Federal or Postal Disability Retirement applicant that X is further needed — the identification of the OPM Representative that he or she is from the “Disability, Reconsideration & Appeals Division” is both confusing and a misnomer.

For, the recipient of the letter (and just to receive any correspondence from OPM other than an approval letter or a denial letter is an amazing fact in and of itself) can well infer from the designation that his or her Federal Disability Retirement application has already been denied without notification (i.e., because it is in the “Reconsideration & Appeals Division”). In fact, all cases fall under the aegis of “Disability, Reconsideration & Appeals” section of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Misnomers may be unintended. It is the recipient and the responder who must, unfortunately, live with the consequences.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Process

The engagement of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, is a “process” both on a macro as well as a micro level.

On a macro level, the ability to consolidate the variety and complexity of information; of understanding that there are multiple levels in the administrative labyrinth of a Federal Disability Retirement application, beginning with the initial stage of the process; then, if denied, the Second, or Reconsideration Stage of the process; then, if denied a second time, an appeal to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board; then a potential filing of a Petition for Full Review; and, finally, an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; all told, the aggregate of all of the procedural hurdles can be characterized as a “process”, precisely because of the complexity of each stage building upon the previous one.

On a micro level, it is similarly a process, but in a different sense.  The “pieces of the puzzle” must be gathered, and the best way to do so is in a methodologically sequential manner, one which reflects a logical structure, as opposed to a haphazard compilation of facts, tidbits, arguments and rants strung together into a barely coherent whole.

Remember that putting together a Federal Disability Retirement application must reflect an argument with a purpose — of proving one’s case by a preponderance of the evidence.  As such, understanding the “process” of such an endeavor is important in the very preparation of one’s case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Responding to OPM

As different Stages in the process of preparing, formulating, and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits require a different response, so there is a reason why it is important to recognize and understand the procedural differences and distinctions between each stage.

Each stage in the entirety of the process is not just a difference of departments — of different “sections” of the Office of Personnel Management reviewing the Federal Disability Retirement application based upon the identical paradigm of review.  Yes, the first two stages of the process (the “Initial Stage” of the application, then the “Reconsideration Stage” of the process) involves the same agency (the Office of Personnel Management), but the underlying reviewing needs of the distinct departments are identifiably different).  

That is why it is important to understanding the underlying procedural requirements, thereby gaining an insight into the substantive needs and requests of the separate departments.  Thus, at the initial stage of the application, a Federal or Postal employee is attempting to meet, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the criteria necessary in obtaining a Federal Disability Retirement annuity.  

If it is denied at the First Stage, then the Office of Personnel Management will normally indicate the deficiencies they have “discovered” in the application.  Whether true or not, whether right or wrong, it is often necessary to address — at least in part — some of the issues brought up by the initial denial.  

Then, of course, if it is denied a second time and one must file an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, a response for the Third Stage of the process will require another, completely different set of responses.  Paradigm shifts occur not only in science; they occur in the administrative procedures of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire