Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Legal Arguments

Legal arguments represent a peculiar form of persuasive argumentation; by appealing to statutory authority, precedents as set by prior court cases and administrative legal opinions, as well as decisions rendered in previous decisions — the foundation of a legal argument rests upon the validity of that which occurred prior to one’s own case.

That is why, in making a legal argument, lawyers argue “by analogy” — via similarity of factual context, as a logical proposition:  X resulted in Y; the factual circumstances in A are similar to X; therefore, A should similarly result in Y.  It is not, in terms of pure syllogistic logic, a valid one to make; for the dissimilarities between A and X may well determine the outcome as to Y.

Further, familiarity with the underlying reasoning of a legal opinion is essential to making a valid legal argument.  That is why non-lawyers who attempt to cite case-law and legal authorities as a basis for their Federal Disability Retirement often fail, and fail miserably:  while it may be the right case-law to cite, the analogy may not fit the context.  In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is not only important to create the nexus between one’s medical condition and the positional duties of the Federal or Postal job; moreover, it is essential to make the logical and legal argument in a persuasive, effective manner.

According to an Aristotelian approach, man is indeed a rational animal, and rationality is effectively pursued through a logical methodology; but what is not stated in such an approach, is that rationality and logic do not constitute the entirety of the universe of human persuasion; legal argumentation is merely one facet of the society within which we must live; in the context of a Federal Disability Retirement application, it may play a major part; and that is why citing the right case, making the proper analogy, and creating the logical nexus between facts and “the law”, is essential to a successful outcome in a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Keeping it Simple

Simplicity merely covers the complexity behind the beauty of the uncomplicated.  Indeed, one only has to look upon an Apple product, or a modern automobile, to recognize the underlying complexities which went into the production of such simplicity.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is often a desire to respond to an OPM denial by attempting to understanding the apparent ‘complexity’ of the denial.  By ‘apparent’ is meant the following:  Most, if not all, of OPM’s denials are regurgitated templates from thousands of previous denials, and quotations of alleged legalese notwithstanding, the basic components of a Federal Disability Retirement case do not change just because the language used attempts to complicate matters.

In the end, driving a technologically advanced automobile still requires hands on the steering wheel, and a foot on the gas pedal and the brake (hopefully, not both at the same time).  All the rest are simply “whistles and horns” to make it appear worth the price tag.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Precision of Terms

Tools and weapons can be interchangeably and effectively utilized, and often with appropriate results; however, normally the intended usage is the preferred application, especially if one desires a result of precision and craftsmanship.  Thus, while using a shotgun to hunt pheasant is entirely appropriate, it may not be the best weapon of choice to kill a squirrel (although, again, it may still be quite effective).  Or, using a corkscrew to make a hole in the drywall may be effective, but perhaps messy.  While adaptation may be a sign of higher intelligence, it may also be indicative of a lack of appropriate knowledge.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the “shotgun” approach used by many Federal or Postal applicants is often indicative of a misunderstanding of the applicable and relevant laws which must be addressed in a Federal Disability Retirement application.  Or, there are Federal Disability Retirement applications where repetitive “name-dropping” occurs — implying some knowledge, but to a dangerously limited extent.  “Bracey”, “Trevan”, “Bruner”, and multiple other names are inserted, often in contextually inappropriate ways (including, one hesitates to add, by lawyers and law firms), as if they are characters in a mystery novel, or perhaps in an HBO detective series.  Or, general terms such as “causality”, “rating”, “maximum medical improvement”, while appropriate in other types of compensatory filings, are almost entirely meaningless for purposes of obtaining Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Precision of terms is necessary in the endeavor of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; for, in the end, the effective tool is the one chosen for its intended purpose, just as man without a teleological essence, is merely a wandering ape in a jungle of arbitrary appearances.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Writing about Medical Conditions

It is easy to give advice about pain when a person is feeling no pain; it is unwise to act upon it when one is in an extreme state of it.  For, the former will often be disbelieving of the extent and severity of it and will therefore view it as involving a lack of fortitude; the latter will be willing to sell his soul in order to rid himself of it.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the problem of pain is representative of the greater difficulties of writing about a medical condition — of the dichotomy and bifurcation of subject-object; of sympathy – empathy; of persuasion and what constitutes effective writing which compels a person to tears.

Of course, as to the latter — we need not expect an OPM Case Worker to be reading your narrative in the Applicant’s Statement of Disability to suddenly burst out in tears, get up, and scream as he or she is running down the corridors of OPM holding your case file declaring, “This one is approved!  This one is approved!” (although such a scene would indeed be welcome and rather amusing).

The problem nevertheless exists — of how one can write about one’s own medical conditions, with a level of objectivity, a compelling sense of persuasive effect, a standard of maintaining a perspective which declines to cross into maudlin overstatement, and a judicious use of adjectives in conveying a true picture of pain or symptomatologies of medical conditions, which paints the picture as opposed to merely narrating a list of diagnoses which may portray unfeeling information, as opposed to the entirety of information, feeling, sensation and struggle — the aggregate of the human condition as encompassed by one in pain.

The problem has no answer; rather, it is one which must always seek a solution, which is a process in and of itself.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Criteria and Proof, II

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under either FERS or CSRS, it is important to pause in the beginning stages of the process, prior to “going down the road” of the long and difficult administrative process of preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, to consider the conceptual distinction between a legal criteria and the proof which is needed in order to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the legal criteria.  

In this day and age when the “culture at large” believes that an individual who speaks the loudest, uses words which appear in form articulate, and in cadence of some eloquence, the reverberations to the legal community have been felt both qualitatively and quantitatively.  Lawyers are supposed to be word-crafters; lay individuals who have some inkling of “the law”, may have some competence in the legal arena, but in order to survive the multiple pitfalls which are inherent in any area of law, it is wise to consider “that which” must be proven, as opposed to the proof itself.  

It is thus important, in preparing to formulate a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, to review the statutes which govern the eligibility criteria for Federal and Postal employees; to read through the regulations; to research the case-laws as interpretive devices which can expand, constrict or regurgitate the statutory authority as written, as handed down by Administrative Judges at the Merit Systems Protection Board; then, upon a thorough and competent understanding of the legal criteria applicable in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, to begin to gather the “proof” which is necessary in order to satisfy and meet the legal criteria.  

Only upon an understanding of the distinction between criteria and proof can one then proceed to gather the latter in order to satisfy the former.  Early distinctions made can clarify and avoid later confusions encountered; or, as the age-old dictum goes, being penny wise is preferable to ending up pound foolish (or some variation thereof).

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement Filing

In filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, it is important to never overlook the obvious.  One of the “obvious” points is this:  If the document sent to the Office of Personnel Management never reaches them, it does no good.  It is therefore important to make sure that all documents get there.

Normally, it is good practice to perform some “follow-up” actions — to send the document by fax, then by regular mail or express mail (my preference), to help ensure that the document arrives at OPM.  A follow-up telephone call is often a good idea, but more importantly, receiving and keeping a record of the transaction of sending the document is what is vitally important.  For, if it later turns out that OPM never received a particular document, or states that they never received it, having a record of sending the document will be important in establishing the right to have it reviewed at a later date, for consideration in having one’s Federal Disability Retirement application under either FERS or CSRS approved.

Remember the obvious:  If you don’t file it on time, or file it at all, you can’t argue the substance of that which was filed.  Having a record of the filing is just as important as filing it, because filing it without a record can end up with one’s hands seemingly left in an empty pocket.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Worker Disability Retirement: Extrapolating Carefully from “The Law”

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, it is important to recognize the major legal cases (those “landmark cases”) from which many other cases derive their foundational basis.  Such cases form the fundamental and overriding criteria of a legal arena, and this is no different in arguing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, either for Federal or Postal employees.  Furthermore, in citing a case to argue for one’s position of eligibility and entitlement, it is equally important to have read the cases carefully, and to argue the merits of an issue persuasively and accurately.  

One of the worst things that a lay, non-lawyer applicant can do is to mis-cite a case or a statute, and its meaning and ancillary conclusions.  For, when the Office of Personnel Management reviews a case and refutes a particular issue, and further points out that a legal precedent or statutory authority has been mis-applied, one’s credibility as to the substance of the application is not only undermined, but further, the viability of one’s legal argument has been subverted.  As such, it is normally advisable to leave the law to lawyers — and in Federal Disability Retirement cases under FERS or CSRS, to leave it to lawyers who specialize in the field. For, to do little or no harm to one’s self is certainly better than to saw off the branch which one has grasped onto, no matter how tenuous the position to begin with.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: Numbers

Numbers, statistics and percentages rarely tell a complete story, especially in relation to a person’s medical condition.  In Federal Disability Retirement applications under FERS or CSRS, numbers must be utilized carefully and, more importantly, effectively.  Moreover, numbers can be used to diminish or otherwise minimize the seriousness of a medical condition.

For example, if the loss of a forefinger of a right-hand dominant individual would constitute a 5% disability of the “whole person”, does that tell the full story of the impact of such a medical condition upon one’s ability to perform a job which requires daily manual dexterity & use of the right hand?  Or if the loss of vision in one eye were deemed to be a 10% disability, how would one quantify such a medical condition for a computer graphics engineer?

Scheduled awards for Worker’s Comp requires such quantification; and the Veterans Administration ascribes service-connected disability ratings, but unless one descriptively defines the relevance of such numbers to the impact upon one’s ability/inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job, such numbers lose their importance and relevance.

In filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, it is important to recognize that the language used, and not the numbers ascribed, determines the relevance and ultimate success.  Numbers must be descriptively quantified; numbers in and of themselves never tell a story, except perhaps to the mathematician, which the workers at the Office of Personnel Management are not.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Information

Information is plentiful in this age of technology and the Internet.  But always remember that information is distinctly different from knowledge and truth.  A plethora of information does not necessarily constitute true, verifiable, useful, or accurate knowledge.  With all of the information “out there”, how does one verify the information?  

Further, with respect to filing for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS, how does one discern correct and accurate information from information which, if used or relied upon, can actually result in a detriment?  One way is to spend some time reading and sifting through various sources of information; comparing the information; and further, seeing whether one can discover the underlying motivation or purpose of the source of the information.  Further, in seeking legal advice in filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, remember that you must ultimately make the determination as to competency,reliability, and capabilities.  Obtaining Federal Disability Retirement benefits is an important step in one’s life; finding the right information, and the right source of information, is an important first step in the process.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Coordinate the Supporting Documentation

An Applicant’s Statement of Disability in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS must always attempt to coordinate the statement with the supporting medical (and other) documentation, taking care that the statement does not undermine the supporting documentation, and conversely, to deliberately and with purposeful intent to make sure that the supporting documentation does just that — “supports” and complements what the Statement of Disability states.  Thus, the Statement of Disability must find a careful balance between overwhelming the supporting documentation and undermining the supporting documentation.  It must do neither; it must, instead, strike the middle ground, allowing for the supporting documentation to provide the focal emphasis of the substance and content of the claims inherent in the Statement of Disability, and at the same time, must validate the Statement of Disability.  In this way, an applicant’s Statement of Disability in an OPM Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS conveys the validity of a submission.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire