Posted on April 15, 2010 in Administrative Law
When a denial is received for an Application for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, sometimes they are replete with comical "errors" and omissions. Thus, anywhere from mistaken identities, to wrong job identifications, to the wrong doctors named; from medical conditions which were never claimed, to diagnostic tests and surgeries which were never submitted; these are just some examples of errors and omissions which one might find in the body of the "Discussion" in an OPM denial letter. The reflexive temptation is to put together a string of harangues and accuse the OPM Representative of incompetence, incoherence, ineptitude, and inability to perform the essential element of his or her job. Such a reflexive response would be the wrong tact to take, however. One should refrain from making such "ad hominem" attacks. Instead, the better way to go about it would be to politely point out the major errors, the omissions of any medical or other substantiating documentation, in an understated way, then to argue the main points that need to be argued to rebut the denial letter. While the former methodology may make you feel good, in the end, it is an approval which will prove to be of lasting elation.
Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire
When a denial is received for an Application for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, sometimes they are replete with comical "errors" and omissions.