OPM Disability Retirement: Coordinate the Supporting Documentation

An Applicant’s Statement of Disability in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS must always attempt to coordinate the statement with the supporting medical (and other) documentation, taking care that the statement does not undermine the supporting documentation, and conversely, to deliberately and with purposeful intent to make sure that the supporting documentation does just that — “supports” and complements what the Statement of Disability states.  Thus, the Statement of Disability must find a careful balance between overwhelming the supporting documentation and undermining the supporting documentation.  It must do neither; it must, instead, strike the middle ground, allowing for the supporting documentation to provide the focal emphasis of the substance and content of the claims inherent in the Statement of Disability, and at the same time, must validate the Statement of Disability.  In this way, an applicant’s Statement of Disability in an OPM Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS conveys the validity of a submission.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The "Process" at the Reconsideration Stage

It is important to understand that the “process” of filing for Federal Disability Retirement, when it comes to the Second, or “Reconsideration” Stage, encompasses two factual prisms:  (1)  The application has now been denied (obviously, and for whatever reason — most likely because of “insufficient medical evidence”) and (2) it is the stage in the process prior to an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. 

This dual prism of the stage, while self-evident, is important to keep in mind, because it requires a duality of duties:  A.  It requires (for the Disability Retirement Applicant) a duty to show something beyond what has already been shown, while B.  It requires the Office of Personnel Management to be careful in this “process” of review, because if OPM makes a mistake at this stage, then the likelihood is great that they will be required to expend their limited resources to defend a disability retirement case before an Administrative Judge, and if it becomes obvious that the case should have been decided favorably at the Second Stage, it reflects negatively upon the Agency.  OPM is an agency made up of people (obviously); as such, just as “people” don’t like to look foolish, OPM as an Agency made up of people, does not like to look “badly” or “foolish”.  This duality of factual prisms is important to understand when entering into the Second, Reconsideration Stage of the “process”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire