Reilly v. OPM (07/15/09) A disability claimant's medical documentation which post-dates separation from Federal Service and relates backs to Federal Service may not be considered irrelevant by the OPM in evaluating and reviewing a Federal disability retirement application.
Vaniekan-Porter v. OPM (11/26/07) If a disability retirement applicant's treating doctor arrives at the medical opinion based upon "established diagnostic criteria" which are "not inconsistent with generally accepted professional standards", unless OPM can attack the credentials or veracity of the medical opinions, proper probative weight must be given both by OPM and by the Merit Systems Protection Board in reviewing, evaluating, and rendering a decision on a Federal disability retirement application.
Postell-Porter v. OPM (06/04/09) An agency’s action in separating an employee because of disability serves to shift to the government only the burden of production, requiring the government to come forward with sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of disability. See Bruner, 996 F.2d at 294. The government can meet this burden of production by demonstrating a lack of objective medical evidence providing a reasoned explanation of how certain aspects of a particular condition render the employee unable to perform specific work requirements.
Torres v. OPM (04/01/09) Torres applied for disability retirement under the CSRS, claiming she was unable to sufficiently perform her duties as a Procurement Technician because she suffered from depression and anxiety. The OPM denied her application upon determining that she failed to show that the misconduct that led to her removal, her only performance deficiency, was caused by a medical condition. Affirmed.
Johnston v. OPM The statute governing disability retirement provides that benefits may be granted "only if the application is filed with the Office before the employee . . . is separated from the service or within 1 year thereafter." 5 U.S.C. § 8337(b)
McLaughlin v. OPM The time limitation on filing the application may be waived where the applicant was mentally incompetent during a statutorily defined time.
Licausi v. OPM The requirement that the employee seeking disability retirement prove that the medical condition in question prevents him or her from rendering efficient and useful service applies both to the employee's initial application for disability retirement as well as the employee's continuing right to benefits, the right to reinstatement of benefits after a finding of recovery, or the right to reinstatement of benefits after a restoration of earning capacity.
Townsend v. OPM The individual must, while employed in a position subject to FERS, have become disabled because of a medical condition, resulting in a deficiency in performance, conduct, or attendance, or if there is no such deficiency, the disabling medical condition must be incompatible with either useful and efficient service or retention in the position.
Lensing v. OPM This case, like many disability cases, turns mainly on the standard of review. Disability claims in general are very factual in nature, and Congress has given this court a very narrow scope of review over Board decisions regarding claims for disability benefits. In sum, while we find this to be a troubling case factually, there is no legal basis for us to intercede. We therefore are constrained to uphold the decision of the Board and, in turn, of OPM.
Kessler v. OPM An administrative judge is not required to enumerate the "essential elements" of an applicant's position and then correlate the psychiatric conditions to each of those elements.While there is evidence in the record to show that Kessler received treatment, ultimately unsuccessfully, for his drug abuse, the AJ did not find that Kessler's drug abuse was a medical condition that would allow Kessler to receive disability benefits.
|