In OWCP/Department of Labor cases, often the focal point of contention (among other issues) involves whether or not a medical condition “pre-existed” the on-the-job injury which is the basis of the claim for compensation.
In a FERS or CSRS Federal Disability Retirement application, such an issue is usually irrelevant, precisely because the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement is unconcerned with the “where” of a medical condition, as in, “Where did the event take place, which resulted in the medical injury or condition — on the job or not?” However, the term “preexisting condition” can involve a different conceptual paradigm, encapsulating not the situs of the occurrence, but whether the Federal or Postal employee was hired with the medical condition, and thus was able to accomplish and perform the essential elements of one’s job despite having the medical condition.
The Office of Personnel Management will sometimes argue this point — that the Federal or Postal employee who has filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS has a “preexisting condition”; but such an argument actually goes to the issue NOT of whether or not such a preexisting condition is a basis for a denial (it is not), but rather, as to why a Federal or Postal employee would be eligible with such a preexisting condition since that Federal or Postal employee was able to successfully perform his or her job for many years even with the medical condition upon which the Federal Disability Retirement application is based upon.
Thus, the question in such an instance is not really a preexisting medical condition issue; rather, it is an issue about exacerbation and whether such a preexisting medical condition has progressively worsened to impact one’s ability/inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job. How one formulates the issue is very important; OPM does not necessarily understand the proper formulation of a legal issue; as such, it is often the job of the applicant for Federal Disability Retirement benefits to re-formulate the issue in its proper context.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire