Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Explanation & Intelligibility

The goal of an explanation is to achieve greater intelligibility; otherwise, if the latter is not achieved, the former loses its purpose.  If the explanation fails to provide a basis for the goal, it would then undermine its own rational foundation.

Law often loses sight of this simple principle, and feeds upon itself to justify the complexity of its own existence. But if the purpose of the legal field is to maintain a civilized society and to simplify the conundrum of life’s entanglements, then much of law fails to achieve its justifying existence.

For Federal and Postal employees who must wade into the complex and often mystifying realm of Federal Disability Retirement law, the problematic and confusing aspects of standard forms, procedural hurdles and legal ramifications compounded by the debilitating effects of the medical conditions themselves, can be daunting and prohibitive.  Furthermore, while some explanations can be forthcoming, the problem with most is that they fail to correctly inform.

In this age of technological plenitude, where information is in abundance, but where verification of the sufficiency of information is often inadequate, it is important to seek intelligibility from sources which correctly explain.

Federal Disability Retirement is an important step for the Federal employee and the U.S. Postal worker who finds that one’s medical condition prevents one from performing the essential elements of one’s positional duties in the Federal sector.

Whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, taking the affirmative step to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits begins first with an acceptance of the administrative process; next, one must seek an explanation in order to reach an understanding of the bureaucratic procedures; and, finally, one must achieve a sense of confidence in the process, which can only come about through reaching the goal of intelligibility, through explanation, and thereby reaching that plateau of understanding.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire