Disability Retirement from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Expunging the Chatter of Irrelevance

The bombardment of information is a constant and persistent drone; what constitutes newsworthy items, priority of information, and sifting through the quantitative morass of irrelevance, is a daily toil which requires expenditure of human stamina and sheer will power which grinds and depletes the soul of needed quietude.

This is a complex world.  The blare and glare of “relevant” information fights for our attention daily, if not every minute of each hour; if not every second and fraction thereof; and sometime in the recent past, the accepted bifurcation between news, entertainment, and personal opinion no longer followed the conventional pathway of self-evident declarations, and it became the norm to cross the boundaries of propriety.

Now, it is up to each individual to unravel the composite fictions created by the quantitative juggernaut of information overload. Information is there for the public; that is a good thing.  But to recognize and divide relevant information from the chatter of irrelevance — that is the key to maintaining one’s sanity.

For Federal and Postal employees who are contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, the tripartite pressure of information overload confronts one with an unavoidable immediacy: Trying to maintain one’s job while simultaneously fending off any adverse actions from the agency; trying to prepare a Federal Disability Retirement application without undue dissemination of sensitive medical information to those not necessary to the process, and thus attempting to retain a certain level of privacy; and trying to find relevant information from the vast storage of quantitative overload, and sifting it down to that which is relevant, as opposed to the chatter of irrelevance.

The chatter of irrelevance, quite simply defined, is that which makes a lot of noise, but is substantively devoid of useful content.

Compare, contrast, and analyze; but in the end, the age-old merchant’s adage of “buyer, beware,” should still be applied when accepting information for such an important step as preparing, formulating, and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal Worker is under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: Frameworks

To be successful in any endeavor, one must identify the relevant issues, sift through and discard the peripheral contents, and maintain a thematic thread throughout in order to keep the focus upon the essence of the project. Anyone who has attended a meeting which lacks a subject-matter focus, and where a free-for-all is allowed, without a circumscribed set of agendas, can attest to the importance of setting priorities and understanding the difference between points of significance and irrelevant detractions.

Frames are important, and sometimes as much as the painting itself.  For, art is merely a slice of the greater exposure to life, and it is the frame which distinguishes that parcel of perspective and allows the viewer to participate in a moment of time and a pause for reflection.  For the Federal or Postal Worker who is contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to provide a “roadmap” to OPM, and thus circumscribe the framework of the relevant attachments, medical and legal issues to be evaluated, and the pathway to resolutions preemptively proposed.

Thus, the three tiers of an effective framework should include: (1) A clear and concise Statement of Disability (here, one must be careful because of the legal consequences of failing to include and fully describe the medical conditions), (2) A reference to the relevancy of the attached documents which support the statement, and (3) the pertinent legal foundations which are satisfied by the first two tiers.

He who frames the picture has the power to direct the viewer’s perspective; for, it is the frame which enhances the content of the artistry, and directs the appreciation to an irrelevant empty sky in a schematically unimportant corner of the painting, or to the central theme where the brilliance of bursting colors explode forth in magnificent reflections of a masterpiece’s slice of life.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Necessary Connections

Necessity is determined by how one defines and confines the parameters required to reach the requisite conclusion; if the criteria governing the roadmap to a successful outcome is replete with heightened qualitative specifications, greater care and effort may be mandated; conversely, if a looser, more informal measure is imposed, the tendency is to respond accordingly.

But what determines the response — outside influences, or one’s own standard of excellence? In Hume’s argument concerning causality, of course, the prerequisites defined were instituted at the outset to defeat the argument for causality; by setting up the requirement of what constitutes a “necessary connection” in order to establish a causal connection, he allowed for no amount of evidence which would satisfy his rule; thus, it was already a self-contained tautology from the outset.

For preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS, the question becomes: Does the medical condition itself determine the extent of groundwork necessary for a successful approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, or should the identical set of stringent prerequisites be satisfied regardless of the seriousness of the medical condition?  The obvious answer, of course, should always ascribe to the latter, as acceptance of the former entails potential pitfalls which may result in lost time and unnecessary efforts expended for satisfaction of additional stages in the administrative process.

Necessary connections in a Federal Disability Retirement application must be proven and established at all levels; for, as the age-old adage reminds us, it is the weakest link in the chain of arguments which will ultimately defeat the entire structure of an otherwise solid case.

It is the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, through statutory impositions and regulatory requirements, which has “pre-set” the necessary connections to be made in proving eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits; it is up to the applicant (you) to make sure that all such causal connections are established, proven, confirmed and supported, in order to ensure the best chances for success in an administrative process fraught with human frailties and foibles.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM FERS/CSRS Disability Retirement: Sequential Propriety

In many societies and cultures which still consider social protocol of applicable importance, correctness and orderly rectitude must be followed in rigorous detail.  It is the process itself which constitutes substantive relevance, and not merely the ritual itself.

Thus, for example, engaging in the details of business dealings prior to enjoying a meal, or bringing up the subject of a disputed issue during a meal or in the presence of family members, may be a violation of such social protocol as to justify irreparable severance of any future business dealings.  Sequence of actions, tested and applied over decades and centuries of norms developed through cultural screens of human institutions guided by sensitivities impacted by trial and error, retain a purpose beyond the mere folly of observable appearances scoffed at by foreigners to the cultural protocol.

For those who are unfamiliar to the importance of such subtleties, a singular breach may invite a fury of cold shoulders resulting from the rudeness of misunderstandings. For the Federal and Postal Worker who is considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is something to take note of. Not in the sense of social protocol; rather, in the lessons which can be gleaned from the importance of sequential application.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, it is important to recognize that proper sequence of compiling the evidence and presenting one’s case can be crucial in the successful filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  Doing things “out of step’ can result in preemptively harming one’s own OPM Disability Retirement application.

Whether it is like the proverbial gaffes of, for example, “letting the cat out of the bag”, or “speaking out of turn”, one should always take seriously the relevance and importance of social protocol as a cultural phenomena which contains a logical basis, and is not merely a compendium of silly rules garnered to make outsiders uncomfortable; rather, proper sequence and protocol of actions often teaches us that how one performs the process itself is just as important as the end product for which we strive.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Key Words, Conveyance of Information, and Satisfying the Legal Criteria

There is often a misunderstand about a Federal Disability Retirement application, submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS: that the magic of linguistic compliance will bring about success, as opposed to the compilation and delineation of information needed to meet the legal criteria in a case.

There are no “magic words” or “key phrases” which the Federal or Postal applicant, the treating doctor, or the lawyer representing the Federal or Postal employee, can utilize or include in any Federal Disability Retirement packet, which will ensure or otherwise exponentially increase the statistical variances of being successful in applying for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  Rather, the “key” to a successful filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application is to compile the necessary and required documentation in order to meet the medical and legal criteria mandated by law, in becoming eligible and entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

The difference may be somewhat subtle: on the one hand is the misguided approach of thinking that Federal Disability Retirement application-X was successful because it contained certain key phrases and elements, and thus in thinking that a regurgitation and reenactment of those phrases or elements, if used in another Federal Disability Retirement application, will result in an identical outcome.

The proper approach (satisfying the converse grammatical requirement and avoiding the necessity of saying, “on the other hand”) in opposition to the “key phrase” thought, is to recognize that each Federal Disability Retirement application-Y is constituted by unique facts and medical data peculiar to the individual case, but that in the application of those facts and data, compliance with the administrative criteria is somewhat self-reflective. Similarity, however, does not imply successful extrapolation of previously-applicable content from another Federal Disability Retirement application.

That is the mistake which is often made: One success often leads to the laziness of regurgitation; to put it crudely, one can starve by feeding upon the same food within a confined organic digestive system. In the end, a successful Federal Disability Retirement application must not rely upon prior successes, but rather, recognize the uniqueness of each set of circumstances, apply the relevant law to such peculiarities, and argue the evidence in the context of the conveyance of information meeting the statutory criteria espoused by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Effective Negations

Why is it that some words are known primarily by their negation?  For example, we use the word “unfettered” to convey the meaning of freedom and release, but rarely see the usage of its non-negative form, as in, “He is fettered”.  Perhaps it is because we no longer approve of placing chains or manacles upon prisoners, and instead have become more civilized, with a concurrent alteration in the usage of the term for more genteel societies.

Often, it is the very negation of X — whether through minimization or leaving out completely that which we originally thought to be so indispensable — which makes for the effective case.  Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the problem is normally not one of what to write about or how much to submit; rather, it is the editing process and the paring down and streamlining of a case which is the hard part.

Most people who suffer from a medical condition which has come to a crisis point where it prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, are not at a loss for words or volumes of documents ready to submit.  But not everything which is material to a case is relevant, and in order to obtain a Federal Disability Retirement from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is always best to streamline on the basis of relevance per statutory criteria.

Thus, we come full circle:  negation of a concept is often the most effective avenue of discourse; the un-negated bundle, left alone, may include too much baggage for the untrained eye.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 94 other followers