Posted on January 30, 2010 in Administrative Law
There is a line to be drawn between arguing the law within a boundary of integrity, and arguing the law beyond any reasonable interpretation of the law. This principle is no less true in administrative law, which is what Federal Disability Retirement law is considered. I often see non-lawyers make "legal arguments" in an initial application to the Office of Personnel Management, which is then denied, and I then enter my appearance in the case at the Second, Reconsideration Stage of the process. That is fine — some applicants want to try and save the cost of hiring an attorney, and then decide it is necessary after it has been denied. However, as I often explain to clients: while most mistakes in a Federal Disability Retirement application can be amended or explained, I do not have the magical ability to place "blinders" upon the eyes of the OPM Representative for legal or other arguments or statements made to them at the First Stage of the Process. While my website and my articles & writings provide a good bit of information on filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, and anyone can use it to his or her advantage, one bit of caution: Don’t make legal arguments if you don’t fully know what you are talking about. To do so more often than not results in a loss of credibility, and if your case goes before an Administrative Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Judge may not look favorably upon a case where a spurious argument was made at the initial stage of the process.
Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire