[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-147269-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-147269-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","dina-diener-office-of-personnel-management-opinion-and-order","DINA DIENER - OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT - OPINION AND ORDER","","Decision on a disability retirement appeal filed under relevant federal statutes through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). OPM denied the application for lack of objective medical evidence of total disability, but the Board grants the petition for review. Applying the evidentiary framework for voluntarily initiated disability retirement cases, the Board finds the record supports total disability for useful and efficient service, substituting its finding for the prior denial.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/dina-diener-office-of-personnel-management-opinion-and-order/147269/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/dina-diener-office-of-personnel-management-opinion-and-order/147269.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Alex Sinclair","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-08-26",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",15,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Why was the disability retirement application denied by OPM?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"OPM denied the application because there was insufficient objective medical evidence to support a finding of total disability.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What standard did the Board apply to determine total disability?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The Board evaluated probative value of all evidence, including objective clinical findings, diagnoses and expert medical findings, subjective evidence of pain and disability, and evidence about the effect of the condition on the ability to perform the last occupied position.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How did the Board rule after reviewing the evidence?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The Board found that the appellant established total disability by a preponderance of the evidence and substituted its finding for the contrary decision of the presiding official.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},147269,1787761029,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":33,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":124,"preview_page_count":4},1099523882182,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","DINA DIENER  \nV.  \n# OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT\n\nOPINION AND ORDER  \nAppellant filed an application for disability retirement pursuant to 5U.S.C.§8337(a)with the Office of Personnel Management(OPM).UponOPM's denial of her application,she requested reconsideration and wasagain denied on the basis that there was insufficient objective medicalevidence to support a finding of total disability.The appellant filed atimely petition for appeal with this Board's New York Regional Office.¹5 U.S.C.§7701(a);5 U.S.C.§8347(d);5 C.F.R.§1201.3(a)(6).  \nThe presiding official found that OPM had proven,by a preponderanceof the evidence,that,although appellant was suffering from hyperten-sion,diabetes,spinal arthritis,and atotal uterine prolapse,the objectivemedical evidence did not support a finding of total disability.Initialdecision at 5.Accordingly,he sustained OPM's denial of a disabilityretirement annuity.Appellant filed a timely petition for review withthe Board.  \nThe petition for review is GRANTED.  \nIn our decision in Chavez v.Office ofPersonnel Management,6MSPB343(1981),we concluded that in a voluntarily initiated disability retire-ment case,the applicant has the burden of proving,by a preponderanceof the evidence,that he or she is entitled to such an annuity.We alsoheld that the ultimate determination of applicant's condition is to bebased upon the probative value of all the evidence,taking into account:  \n(1)objective clinical findings;(2)diagnoses and expert medical findings;and (3)subjective evidence of pain and disability together with;(4)allevidence relating to the effect of the appellant's condition upon his orher ability to perform in the grade or class of position last occupied.Id.,358-59.  \nThe relevant facts underlying this case are as follows:  \nAppellant has been a federal employee for over 161/2 years.Her pres-ent position as receptionist in the Social Security Administration re-quires frequent contact with the public,and pressure and tensionnecessarily result.Nor is her position mainly sedentary.One of her jobduties,for example,is finding claim representatives to deal with theSocial Security applicants.  \nAppellant is 57 years old and reportedly obese.She has been diag-nosed as suffering from controlled diabetes mellitus²(report of Dr.E.Phillips,December 18,1978),moderately severe hypertension with bloodpressure of 180/100³(report of Dr.T.Slutsky,September 26,1979),spinal arthritis and total uterine prolapse⁴(report of Dr.H.WallaceKava,September 7,1979,and Dr.T.Slutsky).These diagnoses aresupported by substantial clinical medical evidence.Doctors Phillips andSlutsky stated unequivocally that appellant is totally disabled.  \nAppellant also testified at the hearing,stating that:  \nmy mind is cloudy and I can't think straight lots of times,and whenpeople call up,you know,I’m supposed to look up certain files andhelp them.I just can't do it.I get all confused and I make mistakes.(Hearing Transcript at 15.)  \nShe gets these symptoms “practically every day.”(Hearing Transcript at 10.)  \nAppellant’s claim of total disability is supported by Ms.Eva Casas,appellant's supervisor,who states that:  \nMrs.Diener is unable to perform almost all of the duties outlinedin her job description.She cannot handle face-to-face contact withthe public.She can only do mail and phone processing of SocialSecurity paperwork and limited reception area work...  \nMrs.Diener's face gets very flushed from ear to ear and she cannotcontinue working because of dizziness.  \nMrs.Diener cannot function under normal working conditions.(Su-perior Officer's statement,December 28,1978.)  \nMr.Sidney Wekser,the District Manager of the agency's installationat which appellant was employed,also indicated that appellant couldnot even perform these lighter tasks efficiently.In an unsolicited lettersupporting appellant's application for a disability retirement annuity,he states:  \nIn my personal opinion,this employee not only is incapable of per-forming in her presen","cbCaipeZdOmusA2j","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipeZdOmusA2j","pdf",147680,"English","# Opinion and Order\n## Procedural history\n## Evidence standard and framework\n## Medical conditions and supporting testimony\n## Supervisory and district manager statements\n## Board’s findings and substituted decision","[{\"question\":\"Why was the disability retirement application denied by OPM?\",\"answer\":\"OPM denied the application because there was insufficient objective medical evidence to support a finding of total disability.\"},{\"question\":\"What standard did the Board apply to determine total disability?\",\"answer\":\"The Board evaluated probative value of all evidence, including objective clinical findings, diagnoses and expert medical findings, subjective evidence of pain and disability, and evidence about the effect of the condition on the ability to perform the last occupied position.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Board rule after reviewing the evidence?\",\"answer\":\"The Board found that the appellant established total disability by a preponderance of the evidence and substituted its finding for the contrary decision of the presiding official.\"}]","DINA DIENER - OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT - OPINION AND ORDER | PDF"]