Last Updated on November 12, 2012
Ultimately, a Federal Disability Retirement application is a paper-presentation to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Yes, yes, we are entering into a “paperless” technological society, and that is fine; but by “paper presentation” is meant in a generic sense, that the proof necessary to obtain eligibility and entitlement to a Federal Disability Retirement benefit, must be presented in a format which is readable, comprehensible, and coherent — whether on a computer screen or in paper format.
The burden of providing such proof is upon the “applicant” — the Federal or Postal employee who is attempting to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits. That “burden” is both a legal one, as well as a regulatory one. There are different levels or requirements of what constitutes proof, depending upon the requirements of what must be proven.
In a general sense, one can assert that all that is necessary in a Federal Disability Retirement case is to gather together one’s medical records, wrap them in a secure bundle, and forward them to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Will such an approach “prove” one’s Federal Disability Retirement application? It might — depending upon the seriousness of one’s medical condition, and whether the Disability Retirement Specialist assigned to such a case will take the time to infer and imply. But to make an inference, or to expect an implication to be discerned, takes an unnecessary chance at misunderstanding, failure, and the unwanted “denial”.
Instead, the better approach is to explicitly explicate. Always remember that in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, there is a difference between suffering from a medical condition, and proving that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job. It is the latter which is necessary to be approved for a Federal Disability Retirement benefit. As to the former — while an unfortunate circumstance — it is not enough to suffer to prove one’s case.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire