I will be writing an article of greater length on this issue, but suffice it for now that when “the law” works, it works well. A major second case has been decided in favor of the Federal employee — first, it was Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, 508 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and now, Sylvia M. Reilly v. OPM, decided July 15, 2009. Vanieken-Ryals toppled the irrational imposition of a baseless standard by OPM — that there is a distinction to be made between “objective” as opposed to “subjective” evidence concerning medical evidence (example of the absurdity: How do you prove the existence of pain? While an MRI may show a physical condition, you cannot prove that such a physical condition equates to debilitating pain, leaving aside any quantification of pain. Similarly, how do you prove the existence of Major Depression? Anxiety? Panic attacks?).
Now, Reilly v. OPM has toppled another idol of a false standard imposed by OPM: that medical documentation which post-dates separation from Federal Service is near-irrelevant. This has never made sense, for at least 2 reasons: first, since a person is allowed to file for Federal Disability Retirement within 1 year of being separated from service, why would medical documentation dated after the separation be considered irrelevant? Second, medical conditions rarely appear suddenly. Most conditions are progressive and degenerative in nature, and indeed, that is what the Court in Reilly argues. Grant another win for the Federal employee, the law, and the process of law. It makes being a lawyer worthwhile when “the law” works.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Important Cases, Legal Updates and/or the Current Process Waiting Time, OPM Disability Administrative Law (Statutory and Non-Statutory Law) | Tagged: Administrative Law, anxiety & panic attack in the Postal Service, civil service disability retirement, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, disability laws for postal workers, disability retirement fers, disability retirement from the USPS, disability retirement laws under FERS & CSRS, disabling mental nervous conditions, established diagnostic criteria on mental conditions, federal disability law, federal disability law firm, federal disability retirement law mistakes, federal employee law observer, federal opm disability lawyers in maryland, federal workers with panic attacks, FERS CSRS mental and/or nervous condition, fers disability retirement and false standards, FERS medical retirement, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), help getting fers mental disability, helping injured federal workers, how a federal employee's debilitating pain can be proved, how to file a federal workers injury claim, I'm a federal employee injured at work, interpretation of federal disability law, long lwop for nervous or mental conditions, long lwop sick leave for stress, Major Depression cases in the USPS, mental condition in OPM disability, misinterpretation or misapplication of OPM disability laws, MSPB disability lawyer, objective and subjective medical evidence, one year separated from service opm rule, One-Year Statutory Timeframe, OPM disability retirement, opm injury award retirement, OPM mental condition, panic attacks and federal disability retirement, postal service disability retirement, proving opm emotional disability, Secret Service and medical disability retirement, separated from service, start fers disability retirement, status report federal csrs disability claim, statutory requirements in OPM disability law, stress leave usps, Sylvia M. Reilly v. OPM, the latest trends in opm disability retirement, the Reilly case and what it means for future federal applicants, the statutes and regulations of administrative law, the Vanieken case, the Vanieken-Ryals case, United States Border Patrol disability retirement, usps postal medical retirement information, when "objective medical evidence" is not necessary, when the OPM creates its own laws, when the opm disability law works, when the opm says medical records are irrelevant | Leave a comment »