The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has already addressed the issue of the Office of Personnel Management’s unjustified adherence to making a distinction between "objective medical evidence" as opposed to what they deem and declare to be "subjective" evidence. The distinction has no statutory basis or authority, but OPM continues to make the same, repetitive and tiring arguments concerning such a distinction. Of course, when there exists a plenitude of "objective" evidence, then OPM will often sidestep such evidence and argue that it wasn’t "compelling" enough. The fallacy of "objective" versus "subjective" becomes most apparent, of course, when it addresses the issue of "pain". Pain is by definition a subjective state of experiential encounter. If there is any "objective" evidence of pain, it is a misunderstanding of what constitutes such evidence. Thus, for instance, one might point to an MRI showing a multi-level disc degeneration from L3-L4, L4-L5, etc., and state, "There, we have objective evidence of pain." Not quite. What you merely have, if one stops and considers it, is simply a parallel set of observable facts: A: an image which reveals an abnormality of the spine, combined with B, which has an individual who conveys a sensation of pain. However, inasmuch as there are many people who have similar or worse states of "A" (multi-level disc degeneration), but go through life without any apparent pain, one cannot therefore argue that A is "objective" evidence of "B". There may be a parallel correlation to be made, but no causal connection. Regardless, the Federal Circuit Court has already declared OPM to be in error for making such a distinction. However, despite the law, OPM continues to deny Federal Disability Retirement applications under FERS & CSRS by adhering to the false distinction. Imagine that.
Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has already addressed the issue of the Office of Personnel Management’s unjustified adherence to making a distinction between "objective medical evidence" as opposed to what they deem