One of the first rules announced in any elementary creative writing course is for the budding writer to “show” the reader through descriptive sentences, as opposed to “telling” the audience what has happened. The distinction itself is often difficult to describe; it is like the dividing line between light and darkness — we know it is there, but cannot precisely pinpoint the demarcation line.
Similarly, in law, there is a difference between the “facts of the case” and “proving the case“, and indeed, the difference can encounter major difficulties in overcoming the obstacles presented by the distinction (i.e., it is not the proverbial “difference without a distinction”). Thus, even though one may have all of the facts in favor of one’s case, unless one can prove them (and overcome legal objections, technical obstacles for inclusion and introduction of such evidence, etc.), such an advantageous position may in the end be meaningless unless the articulation of the facts to the jury can be effectuated.
Analogously, in a Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the fact that one may experience a debilitating medical condition is merely the foundational basis of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application. Beyond the existence of a medical condition, a series of connecting steps must be established: treatment of the medical condition; articulation of the medical condition by a treating doctor; a nexus between the medical condition and one’s positional duties with the Federal government or the U.S. Postal Service; information conveyed as to the impact between one’s duties and the medical condition, etc.
In other words, while the experiential value of the medical condition forms the foundational basis of a Federal Disability Retirement application, the articulation of that medical condition in a systematically persuasive vehicle of communication is paramount in “proving” one’s case. Certainly, experience is the beginning point; but beyond that, one must set about to establish the necessary proof in articulating an experience.
In flying on an airplane, one would certainly rather have an experienced pilot than a brash young pilot who has never flown but who can talk a lot; but in a Federal Disability Retirement application, it is the one who has both — the “experience” of a medical condition, as well as the ability to articulate the condition — which will prove one’s case; and in so doing, hopefully the trip forward will result in minimal engine troubles, and fewer bumps in the administrative ride of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Clarifications of Laws or Rules | Tagged: a personal medical narrative supported by facts, application for opm medical disability language and format, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, conveying an articulate disability application to the opm, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, describing your disability argument in plain english, facts alone may not be enough to prove a federal disability retirement claim, Federal Disability, federal disability retirement law and language used in the application, FERS disability retirement, how the language of a federal employment settlement can affect federal disability eligibility, if mentioning facts alone will prove the truth about your medical condition, language and human condition in the 3112, law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america, legal argumentation and facts on the federal disability retirement application, logical argumentation to support key facts in your fers disability application, maintaining your opm disability claim articulated but simple, medical conditions must be explained in plain english for the 3112c, mentioning facts alone are not enough to win a federal disability retirement case, objective language and evidence in the opm disability claim, OPM disability retirement, owcp disability retirement, perfect conformity of words recommendation: opm disability application, postal service disability retirement, proper language and terms usage in federal disability law, speaking the federal disability retirement language, stating the facts about the essential element of the job, stating the facts versus explaining the facts in a federal disability application, the difference between mentioning and proving your disability to the opm, the facts and statements of an initial federal disability retirement application, the law may say that getting your federal disability retirement claim approved is only about showing the facts "but" ..., the legal landscape of an art form in fers disability retirement, the opm disability application and choosing carefully the right words, the proper language and terms usage in federal disability law, the sequential and persuasive use of language throughout the federal disability retirement process, using clear language in your fers disability retirement application, using objective language and a little of emotional appeal in the sf 3112, USPS disability retirement, when the facts do not speak by themselves: opm disability retirement in the real world, writing a persuasively descriptive narrative for opm disability, writing statement of disability as an art form | Leave a comment »