Last Updated on April 26, 2012 by FERS Disability Attorney
Perspectives vary; varying perspectives often lead to conflict; and conflict represents the divergent paths which pursue different directions, or follow a parallel route.
Physicians who have been practicing medicine for a number of years quite often see the therapeutic benefit of employment, and the negative impact of being identified as “disabled”, with progressive physical manifestations of deterioration, and psychological destruction of futility and hopelessness. It is not mere coincidence that the high rate of mortality is correlated to two primary life events: birth (where the infant’s susceptibility to being exposed to an expansive and threatening environment brings with it inherent dangers), and retirement (where the propelling teleological motivation of man suddenly comes to an end).
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 obvious that one must have supportive medical documentation in order to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Federal or Postal employee is eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits. Part of that medical evidence should include a narrative report from one’s treating doctor, or a doctor who can properly and thoroughly assess, evaluate, and conclude that the Federal or Postal employee can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.
What constitutes “support”, however, can sometimes lead to divergent paths. Doctors are trained to treat patients, not to perform administrative duties. The divergence which potentially leads to conflict often involves the differing perspective of what will “help” the patient. Federal Disability Retirement is a benefits which allows the Federal or Postal employee to remain productive in the workforce, by encouraging the Federal or Postal employee to seek outside employment. This is the key component and concept which often lends persuasive effect upon a suspicious and cautious medical practitioner.
Explaining the process will hopefully allow for parallel paths, and not a route which results in different directions.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire