Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: The Unknown Resulting from a Partial Answer

If a question is not fully answered, is it a lie or a mere oversight?  If one places reliance upon a partial answer, was it because the question was not properly posed, or the answer only fragmentally provided, or as a result of a deliberate attempt to mislead?

Everyone has experienced the process of “switch-and-bait“, where the sales pitch is declared as one never matched in the history of the world; but upon arrival, the original declaration of the event was merely the “bait” in order to complete the “switch” to persuade the attendee to accept another product.  In such circumstances, it is indeed fortunate if the only real consequence was a wasted trip, and one can turn around and walk out.

In law, knowing only the “partial answer”, or the incomplete set of facts, can lead to irreversible consequences.  For Federal and Postal employees, whether under FERS or CSRS, who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, it is important to receive full answers — from all sources — in order to make the right decision for one’s future.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is a serious step for the Federal or the Postal employee’s future. As such, the information which one relies upon in making that important decision — from what the process entails, to the consequential interplay between FERS & SSDI and a multitude of other questions and answers — should be fully understood.

If a source of information seems incomplete, there is often a reason, and sometimes an underlying motive. Beware the buyer; always seek an authenticating source.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: The Source of Information

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application from the Office of Personnel Management, part of the necessary preparation must always include research of information.  Such research of information, however, must include the ability to conceptually distinguish between information which is relevant, useful, and ultimately accurate.

The exponential growth and explosion of information on the internet certainly has made research easy and accessible; however, the ease of access of information also means that the plenitude of information contains the inherent dangers of inaccuracy, if only because the source of such information must be valued and evaluated based upon the source’s motive, background, reason for existence, and intent for providing and supplying such information.

 Thus, for example, if the information comes from the Office of Personnel Management, such information will not contain a viewpoint of advocacy — in other words, not much guidance will be provided in terms of attempting to successfully formulate a Federal Disability Retirement application.  Or, for many websites which provide legal services and representation, the obvious underlying intent and motive is to persuade and convince the reader that a particular law firm is the “one for you”.

Information must be accessed carefully; information should be evaluated thoroughly; information needs to be conceptually dissected and analyzed for accuracy, reliability, and for its relevance and applicability.

But as always, remember the maxim which applies to all information:  there is a difference between information and knowledge.  Alas, the latter will often require experience in the use and application of the former, and in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, because the Federal or Postal employee is relying upon such information to determine the course of one’s future, it is important to recognize the distinction.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire