The
problem of relying on "common
sense" (as that term is often used and understood) is that such reliance not only reflects a
presumption that one possesses that very quality that we deem and recognize as "common
sense", but further, that we assume that we have such sense to realize one possesses it, and
additionally, that the person to whom such sense is applied also has it. In preparing,
formulating and filing for
Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel
Management, it is indeed an arbitrary delegation and assignment of one's case, that the Case Worker
would possess that very quality in the process of evaluating, analyzing and reviewing the Federal
Disability Retirement application. Instead, what normally happens is that the OPM Case Worker
mechanically applies a sheet containing the "
7-part Legal Criteria" and
determines whether or not a
Federal Disability Retirement application satisfies each of the
criteria. But much of Federal Disability Retirement has to do with subtle implications and
"reading between the lines" of a medical report, and coming to a "common sense"
conclusion by extrapolating and actually analyzing
the
connection between one's positional duties and one's medical conditions, and determining whether
or not an inconsistency exists. Further, when
the
Bracey decision concerning the concept of "Accommodations" is considered,
the issue of inconsistency between a Federal or Postal position and the medical condition can be
viewed in a proper light and context, with greater clarity. But to rely upon common sense --
both in one's self, and in someone else -- is a
dangerous
assumption: one which proves the old adage about making a donkey out of you and
me.
Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire