OPM and MSPB Must Not Require Objective Medical Evidence Only in Disability Claims
A 30 year employee of the VA filed for a disability retirement based upon an array of psychological illnesses, including major depression and anxiety disorder. Both OPM and MSPB denied her claim despite uncontroverted medical testimony that the employee likely would never be able to return to work because of her disabling condition. Both OPM and MSPB gave no weight to the employee's medical evidence because it was considered subjective in nature, so her claim was rejected.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed OPM and MSPB in Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, decided November 26, 2007, because of legal error in requiring objective medical evidence to support a disability retirement application. The court made two very important statements with respect to the nature of medical evidence:
- OPM's own regulations require documentation from "a licensed physician or other appropriate practitioner," that must "be justified according to established diagnostic criteria," and the documentation must conform to "accepted professional standards."
- Objective medical evidence is not required by any statute, regulation or precedent
The Vanieken-Ryals case is an important decision for all employees whose injuries or illnesses do not necessarily show up clearly on diagnostic tests or whose pain is self reported. In addition to psychiatric illnesses, neurological conditions and back problems are the most common subjective conditions that trouble OPM and MSPB.
This decision should eliminate any confusion about the alleged necessity of objective medical evidence in support of a disability retirement application.
