Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: The Volume-based Application

A declaration of the sheer volume of medical evidence submitted is often an indicator of the basis for which a Federal Disability Retirement application was formulated; for, in the end, if reliance of the successful outcome of a Federal Disability Retirement application is expected based upon the longevity and extent of a medical condition, the chances of an initial approval may be somewhat compromised to begin with.

Volume can never replace content; and from the perspective of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is often an underlying suspicion that receipt of a thousand pages of medical documentation indicates merely that volume of treatment is being substituted for the substantive content of meeting the required legal standards.

Much of medical notation and treatment records merely reflect a particular appointment’s mechanical applications — continuation of previous treatment plan; refill of prescriptions; standard positive or negative responses to particular questions; prospective treatment modalities; and, as supportive evidence attached to a substantive medical report, they can reinforce the satisfaction of the legal criteria of establishing the necessary nexus between one’s medical condition and the inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.  But left as a replacement for the doctor’s explicit statement confirming such a nexus, it remains a hollow voice within an expansive but empty chamber.

One should never mistake the legal distinction between “primary” evidence and “supportive” evidence.  The former is meant to establish the nexus between one’s medical condition and the essential elements of one’s job; the latter is submitted to reinforce the former.  When one utilizes the former as the substitute for the latter, it is like the self-delusion that just because you are the best player on a pick-up team in your neighborhood, you are ready to enter into the world of professional sports.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Selective Prosecution

The term itself implies a sense of unfairness.  But fairness often depends upon a viewpoint, and the methodology which is applied, or failed to be applied.

Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement case, whether under FERS or CSRS, if the U.S. Office of Personnel Management selectively extrapolates from medical reports, without giving a thorough review and analysis of the submitted documentation, then one may validly allege that such selective “prosecution” of a case has been unfairly perpetrated.

If, on the other hand, one applies the identical concept to the Federal or Postal employee who is the applicant filing for Federal Disability Retirement, then one’s perspective may change. Because the Applicant (the Federal or Postal employee) has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one is entitled and eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, it is therefore proper that the Federal or Postal employee also has the “right” to selectively choose which medical conditions to identify, and to support those medical conditions with the appropriate medical documentation and proof.

One could allege that allowing for the Federal or Postal employee to choose which medical documentation to submit amounts to a selective prosecution of the case; but to make such an allegation misses the point.  It is not the act of selectivity; rather, the methodology and the underlying foundation, which determines the fairness or unfairness of the process.  Everyone has to make choices; how that choice is made, and why, makes all the difference.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire