FERS Disability Retirement: Knowledge & Application

It is assumed in the West that knowledge, in and of itself, is a valuable thing.  And in this country, periods of pragmatism overtake that viewpoint, but always seem to revert back — otherwise, how else would we persuade children to spend countless hours sitting in a classroom, year after year?

As “making a living” has become the primary focus of society in general, there is an ever-pervasive tension between knowledge for its own sake as opposed to knowledge that is “useful” (translation: the “know-how” to make a living).  This is a tension that every society must grapple with — of becoming educated as an end in itself or as a means to a different end.

Few believe that there is a downside to having a good education, but a well-educated populace that lives in poverty cannot for long sustain its justification for perpetuating inapplicable knowledge.  Society must always maintain a balance between theoretical knowledge and applied knowledge.

Law is a discipline which straddles the fence between the theoretical and the practical, inasmuch as it engages in conceptual/intellectual issues, but concurrently, must be able to be applied in the everyday lives of people.  For example, in domestic relations law, there are overarching conceptual principles focusing upon what constitutes “the best interests of a child” in a custody battle, but in the end, the practical application of determining a workable visitation schedule must be hammered out between the parties involved.

Similarly, in Criminal law, while a society may adopt a conceptual apparatus as to whether “reform” is the goal or “punishment” is the justifying foundation for a lengthy incarceration imposed, nevertheless, in either case, society must consider the practical issue of protecting its citizens from further harm which may predictably be committed by the party found guilty.

In a similar fashion, for Federal employees and U.S. Postal employees who file for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the FERS system, knowing the Law and cases governing Federal Disability Retirement is essential in engaging the bureaucratic process, precisely because Federal Disability Retirement benefits is not merely about the medical condition in and of itself, but involves a complex consortium of issues in relation to the job one is positioned in, whether the Agency can accommodate an individual’s medical disabilities as well as what constitutes a legally-viable accommodation, as well as a whole host of other similar issues.

Here, knowledge precedes application, and having a ‘working’ knowledge of the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement in order to apply it at each stage of the administrative process is a necessary prerequisite before considering even applying for the benefit.  Yes, there are rare cases in which the medical disability is so severe and clear-cur that the medical documentation is and should be sufficient unto itself; but that is a rare case indeed.

As such, at whatever stage of the process one finds oneself in the Federal Disability Retirement bureaucracy, you may want to consult with an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes exclusively in Federal Disability Retirement law in order to have not only the knowledge but the practical application of proceeding against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in fighting for your FERS Disability Retirement benefits.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill,

Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Preemptive Argument

There is always the danger accompanying it — That the presupposition was unfounded and you may be pointing out a problem that the other side never thought of.  We are all aware of what assumptions can lead to, and so to make a preemptive argument is to enter into dangerous waters where unseen dangers may lurk.

How does one make the right decision as to whether to include the preemptive argument and how prominently should one make it?  Such a question presupposes a cost-benefits analysis — of first determining how likely the other side will recognize certain weaknesses in your position, then providing the preemptive counterpoint accordingly.

In preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, whether at the initial Stage or at the responsive Reconsideration Stage of the process, the point of making a preemptive argument depends upon the purpose for which you are making it.

For, at the Initial Stage of the process, you should make such an argument in an understated manner, all the while emphasizing the overall strength of the case; whereas, in responding to an OPM Denial and providing a responsive legal memorandum, any preemptive argument should be made both as a response to OPM as well as a preemptive appeal to an Administrative Judge at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) — in other words, the elaboration of an anticipatory argument, presuming that OPM is likely to deny the case a second time, as well.

All preemptive arguments possess inherent dangers, but as OPM systematically engages in a shotgun-scattering approach in justifying its denial of a Federal Disability Retirement Application, it is likely that any preemptive argument is in little danger of bringing up any surprises which OPM hadn’t considered, anyway.

Consider contacting a FERS Attorney to prepare and formulate an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, especially when formulating a cogent argument of preemptive significance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

FERS Medical Retirement from OPM: The Technical Application

In every system, specialty, sub-specialty, etc., there is a technical application and usage of a term, concept, acronym, etc.  Wittgenstein, the Austrian Philosopher and the author of “Philosophical Investigations” (as well as Tractatus Philosophicus and other works), discusses the concept of “Language Games” involving such unique and technical applications of word usage within different contexts and circumstances.

Thus, there are “computer software language games”, or engineering language games — where specific words have meanings quite narrowly defined, and which often excludes the general population’s understanding unless you become a “member” of that particular group, society, etc.

In Federal Disability Retirement Law, there are numerous technical applications within the language game of “Federal Disability Retirement under FERS” — and one of them is the usage and application of the term, “Accommodations”.  The term itself is widely and loosely used — as in referring to various work-related adjustments and changes.

Thus, a Federal Agency or the Postal Service might, for example, refer to a light duty assignment as an “accommodation” provided, when in fact — in the technical, legal sense — it is not at all an accommodation under Federal Disability Retirement Law.

The problem with a technical application, usage and misapprehension / misunderstanding terms and concepts used in a “general sense” as opposed to the “technical sense”, is that such failure of comprehending the precise meaning of a term can result in failing to apply and obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.

Contact a lawyer who understands the technical application of all terms under Federal Disability Retirement Law, and don’t let the language game of Federal Disability Retirement Law mislead you into a failure of filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

Disability Retirement from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM): Giving the Argument

It can be a sign of over-confidence, or merely a regret for a mistake made.  Granting the “other side” — whoever it is — the ammunition to make their argument, is normally not the best strategy in any endeavor.

Sometimes, in a debate, it is a strategically advantageous move to “grant” the other side the argument they are about to make.  By doing so, two things may occur: First, a quiet recognition that the argument granted is a powerful one, but by preemptively dismissing it via the power of concession, it undermines the efficacy of the argument itself.

Second, it makes moot the necessity of the opponent to actually make the argument, thereby focusing the debate upon other issues — ones which you want to emphasize.

Such “giving” of the argument, however, is quite different from the times when we mistakenly provide fodder to the other side for greater strength to “their” argument, and concurrently, weakening one’s own position.

Thus, for example, in a OPM Disability Retirement case, it is normally not a good move to suddenly resign from one’s Federal or Postal position before filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits — for a number of reasons.

For one, it gives OPM the argument that, “How do we know whether or not your agency or the Postal Service could have accommodated you?”  Giving the argument to the other side should always be a deliberate and conscious decision at the outset.  It should not be a move based upon regret.

To prevent that regret, contact an OPM Disability Ret. Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin the process of formulating your arguments, and preventing the giving of the argument which might defeat your own case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Postal & Federal Employee Disability Retirement from the OPM: Knowing the Issues

Without that knowledge, you are going into the arena of legal battle in a blind state, at a disadvantage, and with a high susceptibility of being defeated.  Not knowing what the issues are is like engaging in a frontal assault without having first scouted the position of the enemy — their strength; the terrain; the weapons they possess; their numbers; what fortifications they have established, etc.

You can take a shotgun approach — of guessing at what potential issues may arise — and address them with generalizations and attempted musings of preemptive arguments, but if you don’t know what the issues are, how will you specifically address them, even in a prefatory manner?

In preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, it is important to not only know what the issues are, but to address them in a preemptive way by citing the case-laws which apply.  Each OPM Disability Retirement case has general case-law citations which are always applicable — Bracey v. OPM, for instance.  But then there are specific case-law citations which should be tailored to the unique circumstances of your individual case.

That is why consulting and hiring an effective OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law is important — so that you do not engage OPM blindly, but with a full view of what you are facing, the issues which need to be addressed, and the confidence that you have given yourself the best chance at success.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Federal & Postal Disability Lawyer

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Inconsistencies

Selective extrapolation is the preferred method by which they justify a denial; a notation taken out of context from this particular day, or an offhand comment in response to a nurse’s question on a differentiated day where you may be feeling slightly better, etc.

Inconsistencies remain the harbinger of a denial of a FERS Medical Retirement application from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Yet, life is full of inconsistencies, and one can even argue that inconsistencies are the stamp of reality — that sincerity of life’s events are replete with contradictions and spectrums of bumps; that perfection is often a greater indication of artifice, instead of life’s reality that is actually lived.

That is the anomaly and the inconsistency itself: Perfection of circumstances is the real artifice; lack of perfection, the reality of living life.  Yet, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management reviews a Federal Disability Retirement application in the very opposite way; they search out the inconsistencies, then allege that those inconsistencies somehow rise to the level of artifice, when all along they merely reflect the reality of life itself, replete with inconsistencies that betray the lack of perfection which truth itself brings.

Thus, beware when the doctor or nurse writes in a note, “Feeling much better today” — for, although you still hobble about because of a broken body or are unable to focus or concentrate because of a psychiatric condition, the inconsistency between a singular notation and the reality reflected in one’s medical condition is the weaponized methodology of a Federal Agency which seeks out such inconsistencies as a basis for a denial.

As such, a Federal employee or U.S. Postal Service worker who seeks to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits should turn for advice and counsel to an experienced Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law to make sure that the inconsistencies may be minimized in the impact upon a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Structure and Content

The former provides the form; the latter, the character of the entity.  It is the duality in combination which creates the ability to identify the particular being in an Aristotelian manner — as opposed to the more generalized definition of “Being”.  Without the largest organ of the human body — one’s skin — the “content” of that which separably identifies one individual from another would be lost, and we would all be mere aggregations of various organs not necessarily organized in any coherent way.

Similarly, in any presentation of a written form, it is important to plan the structure and content such that the former allows for coherence and ease of understanding while the latter compels the force of persuasion to impact upon the reader.

In preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, it is important to provide both structure and content in order to enhance the chances for an approval at any stage of the process.  For, the Federal or Postal applicant who is preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, one must first recognize that such an application is a “paper presentation” to OPM, and thus does structure and content both matter.

To merely focus upon “content” — i.e., medical records; the words in the Statement of Disability (SF 3112A) is to overlook the persuasive nature of the structure of the application itself.  Conversely, to concentrate too heavily upon the structure of the FERS Disability Retirement application — the forms to be filed; the “checklist” of necessary and required paperwork — is to underestimate the power of content.

The two must be formed [sic] in tandem; and a persuasive and powerful legal memorandum that provides both a roadmap as well as content-filled legal citations is a “must” in every FERS Disability Retirement application, and this should be formulated and prepared by an experienced Federal Disability Retirement Attorney who specializes in, and is fully knowledgeable of, Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
OPM Disability Lawyer

   

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Standard of incompatibility

How does one “prove” a standard of “incompatibility”?

Physical injuries often allow for a medical opinion to impose certain restrictions:  No lifting more than X-pounds; no standing more than 2 hours within an 8-hour period, etc.  These, then, can directly “prove” that a Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, by comparing such restrictions as against the positional requirements of a given job, and “showing” that the standard required can no longer be met.

The “other” cousin of the standard, as reiterated by cases represented by Henderson v. OPM and related precedents, allow for a “different” type of proof, where one may show that there is a general incompatibility between the entirety of one’s position and the medical conditions one suffers from.

It might be argued that such a standard is more “nebulous” and “harder to prove”, but in fact, the opposite is often true: specificity on a 1-to-1 ratio between a given medical condition or symptom and an element of one’s positional duties no longer becomes necessary.  Rather, a general showing of incompatibility between the “type” of job and the “nature” of a medical condition is enough to qualify for Federal Disability Retirement.

The trick, of course, lies in the manner of “proving” it, but it should be of some comfort to Federal and Postal employees that there is another type of standard beyond the 1-to-1 ratio standard that applies generally for “physical” duties; for, in the end, many psychiatric conditions can only meet the “incompatibility” standard, although some specificity of inability to perform a particular function of the job may be present as well.

To meet either standard is a burden of proof that must be shown by the appellant in all OPM Disability Retirement cases; to understand, apply and satisfy such standards, it is best to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Language Decoupled

The correspondence theory of truth has long since been abandoned; whether by congruence or of fair representation, the classical model dating back to Plato and Aristotle has been replaced by Wittgenstein‘s description of “language games“, which really possesses no reflection upon the objective world which surrounds us “out there”.

With the advent of virtual reality; the blurred distinction between truth and falsity as merely words in play; and Bertrand Russell’s playful destruction of any such theory with the singular statement, “The King of France is bald” (where the truth or falsity of such a statement cannot be questioned, despite there being neither a King of France, nor a determinative value of validity as to his baldness).  Yet, somehow, congruence and correspondence refuses to die outright.

Truth and falsity lives on, like the last vestiges of royalty or lineage of blood, where the twilight of history raises the final flag of rebellion and resistance. Whatever the historical tenacity of such movements, language can never be decoupled from the anchor of reality.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, the reality of connection between one’s medical condition and the need for an accurate description, through words, of the symptoms and diagnoses, cannot be overstated.  This is also true of preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or even CSRS Offset.

Language decoupled becomes an ethereal vestige of residual meaninglessness; an accurate depiction of reality, through the strength of words and language, cannot ever be cast aside.  For, as language is the vehicle of interpretation and communication, so the abandonment of that modality would result in the destruction of human progress on a scale unimaginable within the purview of history’s epochal dawn.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need such a vehicle in order to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with OPM, the very idea of language decoupled would mean the defeat of an OPM disability retirement application at the outset; for it is the very coupling of one’s medical condition to the positional duties required, which proves beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the Federal or Postal employee is eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, and it is the effectiveness of language itself which is the vehicle of that successful enterprise.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: Plan of Attack

Every battle requires a “plan of attack”, and preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is no less an “adversarial” process than a lawsuit filed with the local county court.

One may embellish and deny by describing the process as “nothing more” than an “administrative” procedure, where the deciding agency is merely reviewing the components for “eligibility requirements” and conformance to entitlement regulations, but one needs only to be denied a OPM Disability Retirement application to realize that it is a legal process just like any other.

That is why, when a Federal or Postal employee’s Federal Disability Retirement application is denied at the First Level of the process, the usual response is tantamount to that of an opponent who lacked a plan of attack and quickly disburses in a retreat of panic.

Denials should be expected, and not necessarily because of a lack on the part of the Federal or Postal applicant, but because the “enemy” will counterattack and “win” some “battles”.  The army which never considers a setback is one which advances with such arrogance that the hubris of pride defeats without the enemy ever needing to lift a finger.

For those Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who filed for OPM Disability Retirement benefits, and who thought that his or her Federal Disability Retirement application was an unconquerable force of inevitability, the good news is that there is another day yet to come for a new battle, and even another beyond that, where a singular defeat means merely a chance to regroup for another day’s skirmish in order to win the ultimate prize:  the war itself.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire