Moving forward with the right tools is generally more effective than looking back and trying to correct deficiencies; thus, the age-old adage of being penny wise, pound foolish applies; and in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to make a determination early on to clearly assess the strength of a case, the needs required to optimize such strengths, and to obtain assistance where necessary.
As to an objective assessment of a case: one is normally not the best evaluator in analyzing the strength or weakness of one’s own Federal Disability retirement case. This is because of a self-evident principle operating in each such Federal Disability Retirement case: the subject who suffers from the medical condition cannot objectively evaluate from a third-party’s perspective the viability of a case in terms of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the coherence and compelling nature of the evidence to be presented.
Most believe that his or her case is a “slam-dunk”; few in actual reality ever are. To get denied by OPM at the First Stage; then at the Reconsideration Stage; then to go pro se before the Merit Systems Protection Board; then to obtain a lawyer — while it is good to get a lawyer at any stage of the process — is it wise to attempt a retrospective correction of one’s mistakes? At what stage does it become too late? Where in the process does “correction” override “mistakes”? Compare that to a prospective affirmation of one’s inadequacies — that it is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively evaluate one’s own case; that an effective compilation and presentation of a Federal Disability Retirement case is necessary in order to win in a Federal Disability Retirement case; and that providing a legal citationin support of one’s case is an essential element of a compelling case: combining it all, it would seem that being wise for the pound is preferable than being foolish for the penny (to make an inverse adage applicable).
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Evaluation Of Your OPM Disability Claim – How Do I Know If I Have A Strong Case? | Tagged: avoiding the mspb stage of the federal disability retirement process, best legal representation for disabled usps postal workers, careful planning from beginning can save you future substantial time, correctable errors made by the federal opm disability applicant, correcting errors made during first stage opm disability process, correcting unwanted mistakes during the federal disability process, doing things right the first time (with the initial federal disability application) will save you bucks and heachaches, FERS disability retirement, fortunately most mistakes are correctable in the 3112 forms, getting a mspb trial attorney from the very beginning, getting approved in the administrative stage of the federal disability process, hiring an opm attorney will also purchase peace of mind, how to address a successful federal disability application from the begining, how to best approach a fers disability case, how to best handle an opm disability retirement under fers, making your best case at the initial opm disability stage, OPM disability retirement, owcp disability retirement, paying for peace of mind, peace of mind and security while in the long opm disability process, planning your opm disability strategy from the beginning, postal service disability retirement, preparing the best possible fers/csrs disability application, the best approach to prepare a successful opm disability application, the best chances of getting your fers disability approved, the best time to hire a federal disability lawyer, the best way to deal with a csrs disability claim, the problem of attempting to correct inconsistencies of my fers disability claim, USPS disability retirement, what you wanna do is to get approved in the administrative stage so you'll save yourself future headaches with opm lawyers and mspb judges |
OPM Disability Retirement 
Leave a Reply