Tag Archives: discussion section in the opm denial letter

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: OPM’s Rationale

Posted on by
Reply

Too much time is often spent on the “rationale” or “reasons” for a denial from the Office of Personnel Management, under the “Discussion” Section of a denial letter.  By “time spent”, however, is not meant that one should not selectively rebut, refute and address some of the reasons delineated in an OPM denial letter; rather, what too many people do is to complicate matters by “reading into” the reasons given for the denial.

One of the jobs of an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law under FERS & CSRS is to prepare an application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, rebut a denial, or file an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, based upon one’s experience, wisdom and sense of that which OPM is looking for.

This is accomplished by having learned from a myriad of sources:  from seeing the types of prepared disability retirement packets which have been successful in the past; from learning from past legal arguments and rebuttal arguments as to which have been most persuasive for OPM; and from having conducted multiple Hearings before the Merit Systems Protection Board and learning exactly what the Administrative Law Judge has been most persuaded and convinced by.

Further, having read countless denial letters by people who have attempted to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits at the first stage without an attorney, it is important to focus upon the relevant issues which OPM is seeking, and to disregard those issues which are peripheral or irrelevant.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Reconsideration Decisions

Posted on by
14

Types of reconsideration decisions denying an applicant his or her Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS can and do span the entire spectrum, depending upon the OPM representative who writes up the decision:  from half a page (barely giving a passing, respectful review to a packet which took multiple hours to put together) to over 3 pages long (in the “Discussion Section”); from merely listing general principles of law and generalized, template-like denials to apparent detailed (but very selective) references to various medical reports submitted by the applicant as part of the disability retirement packet — they all boil down to the same thing:  a denial at the initial application stage.

Often, an initial reaction to the denial encompasses a myriad of responses, ranging from incredulity, to resignation, to anger, to indignation.  Set aside the emotionalism.  Further, there is often the reaction to that “one piece” of medical information which the applicant believes should have turned that “denial” into an “approval” — that “one piece” of medical note, statement, sentence, or paragraph which the OPM representative conveniently disregarded or chose not to reference.  Don’t ruminate over it.  It may well be that it was deliberately disregarded; it may even have been overlooked.  More than likely, the OPM representative was fully aware of it, but decided to selectively choose his or her basis as the more “important” and “substantive” evidence, forming the core rationale of the denial.  Don’t waste time.  More work is needed — both medical as well as legal.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Discretion in a Response (Part 1)

Posted on by
1

When a Federal Disability Retirement applicant under FERS or CSRS receives an unfavorable response from the Office of Personnel Management (translated:  an initial Denial), you have the right (which must be asserted in order to move forward in the future, i.e., to the MSPB and beyond) to file a Request for Reconsideration.  If you receive a second denial, then the only response required (and which should and must be asserted) is an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.  A response to the initial denial, however, should include a reply to the (often) detailed “discussion” section of the denial letter.

Normally, when I file a response (in addition to obtaining additional medical documentation from the doctors, and any other substantiating documentation which may be relevant), I normally write up a 5 – 7 page responsive legal memorandum rebutting the denial letter.  Now, this is where “discretion” is necessary.  Upon an initial reading of a denial letter, one’s first response is normally not that which one should act upon, because it is often a reaction of, “What???”   Discretion is a virtue to follow; there must be a proper balance between responding to every single criticism from OPM (not a good idea), to ignoring everything in the denial letter (also not a good idea), to choosing two or three of the more substantive issues brought up and addressing those issues.  How to address them, with what tone, what manner & style, etc., is what an attorney is for.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

 

Federal Disability Retirement: OPM’s Detailed Denial

Posted on by
Reply

Neither length nor detail constitutes legitimacy.  The spectrum of the types and styles of denial letters issued by the Office of Personnel Management in Federal Disability Retirement cases under FERS & CSRS range from a short paragraph under the “Discussion Section”, to 3 – 4 pages of apparent references to doctor’s notes, reports, etc. — with a lengthy lecture about the need for “objective” medical evidence, and about how a particular medical condition “may be” treated by X, Y or Z treatment modalities.

Don’t be fooled.  One may think that, because OPM provides a seemingly “detailed” explanation of why a particular disability retirement application was denied, that such lengthy detail means that it is somehow “substantive”.  In fact, I often find the opposite to be true:  the shorter the denial, the greater the substance.

The lengthy denial letters contain “substance”, all right — but substance of the wrong kind.  They contain:  Mis-statements of the law; mis-statements of the legal criteria to be applied; inappropriate assertions of medical opinions (contrary to what one might think, the OPM representative does not normally have a medical degree, let alone a law degree), and a host of other “mis-statements”.

Sometimes, the weightier the denial, the more confusing as far as how to respond.  And, perhaps, that is one methodology as to how OPM wants to approach the case:  If it seems long and complicated, maybe the applicant will sigh, give up, and go away.  Don’t.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire