Last Updated on December 6, 2021 by FERS Disability Attorney
Lawyers are trained to engage in linguistic gymnastics; that is precisely why Plato railed against rhetoricians of his day, as they used language to distort the fullness of being (as Heidegger would say). For, the malleability of language allows for a spectrum of purposive and mischievous play upon words; only an abiding sense of integrity in the face of a world which has abandoned parameters and boundaries of what constitutes “fair play” in the arena of linguistic word games, would save the original foundation of the correspondence theory of truth. But in this postmodern world where objective truth can no longer be argued for, subtlety in playing a language game is no longer necessary; one can simply, deliberately and without conscience switch one word for another, and maintain a straight face.
So, in a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement case, when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management inserts words which clearly do not reflect the legal standard as presently existing, what does one do? When the standard is raised to require “disability which precludes you from the workplace”, or evidence of a medical condition which is “compelling”, how does one respond? Such unwarranted and baseless legal applications are inserted in many denials from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, requiring a Request for Reconsideration or an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the end, in order to properly respond, one must first recognize the malleability of language; then to identify the proper legal standard to be applied; then to selectively address such improper legal standards.
In a Federal Disability Retirement case, whether under FERS or CSRS, the ultimate problem is that one is dealing with a Leviathan of an agency — the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — and one which has the power to engage in rhetorical flourishes with unfettered abandon.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Tags:
applying for federal disability,
civil service disability,
don't believe the excuses opm uses to deny your federal disability claim,
false standards in opm disability law,
Federal Disability,
FERS disability retirement,
fers disability retirement and false standards,
higher legal standards used by the opm to deny disability retirement,
how the language of a federal employment settlement can affect federal disability eligibility,
is it still difficult to get opm disability retirement with the "more likely than not" legal standard?,
law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america,
legal standards must be met during the opm disability process,
legal standards to be met in an opm disability application,
misunderstanding or misinterpretation opm disability legal standards,
narrowing down OPM excuses for application denial,
nationwide representation of federal employees,
objective language and evidence in the opm disability claim,
opm disability legal standards not explained in opm disability application,
opm's excuses to deny your federal disability retirement,
opm's misinterpretation of the legal standard used to approve fers disability retirement,
playing the opm's game to win your disability benefits,
representing federal employees from any us government agency,
speaking the federal disability retirement language,
standard of proof applicable to opm disability retirement,
statutory legal standard of disability or impairment,
the malleability of opm's varying stances,
the sequential and persuasive use of language throughout the federal disability retirement process,
the untrue and inapplicable standard of law being applied to your opm denial of benefits,
type of legal standard that applies to federal employee disability retirement,
using legal standards to win a federal disability claim,
USPS disability retirement,
what "standard of proof" applies to fers disability retirement,
what medical standards the opm uses to approve or deny disability?,
what standard applies to fers disability: "more likely" or "beyond any reasonable doubt"?
1 thought on “Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: The Changed Standard”