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

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Verification Process

The process for verifying information is a procedural matter which is applied with a systematic methodology.  Verification is essentially a comparative analysis — comparing what is said in one sector of information, with claims made in another.  Consistency of information and claims is therefore what is crucial.  This general overview is applicable in nearly all areas — of law, of marketing, of scholarly endeavors, etc.  

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 maintain a consistency of claims and assertions.  Thus, there should be a logical and sequential order in the approach of putting together a Federal Disability Retirement application.  What is so surprising is how many Federal and Postal employees filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits will prepare and submit an Applicant’s Statement of Disability independent of a written medical report from one’s treating doctor.  

Assumptions and presumptions should be avoided at all costs (yes, and the cost of assuming or presuming can be high, indeed, with the consequence of a denial from OPM).  Of course, consistency and verification of information is applicable not only in the preparation of a Federal Disability Retirement application — the same methodology of verification should be applied as to claims by those who represent Federal and Postal employees.  

There is a lot of information “out there”, but whether and to what extent such information is accurate, useable, or even relevant, is a question to be asked and answered by the Federal or Postal employee preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire