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