OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer: Preemptive Actions

Knowledge can be a dangerous commodity; partial, or little knowledge, can be all the more damaging, precisely because actions can result based upon incomplete information and slices of factually curtailed composites.

The Court of the Appeals for the Federal Circuit has previously pointed out one of the methodological deficiencies engaged in by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in its review and determination of Federal Disability Retirement cases:  of focusing upon that which is not included in a Federal Disability Retirement application, as opposed to reviewing the information of what has been received.

Such a distinction may be a subtle one, and a difference which can be easily overlooked, but it reveals much more than mere word-play.  For, what it manifests is an application of a criteria based upon an erroneous assumption, and one which continues to be applied to this day, despite case-law which admonishes OPM to the contrary.

Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, a 2007 Federal Court of Appeals case, points out the error of OPM’s ways in Federal Disability Retirement cases, where insistence upon “objective” medical evidence continues to dominate, despite the lack of such requirement to the contrary.  Such an issue is especially relevant, of course, in cases where psychiatric medical conditions prevail, and when OPM insists upon the lack of such “objective” medical evidence where none can be obtained, it leads to Federal and Postal employees to react desperately in a preemptively unreasonable frenzy of actions.

Not knowing the law is one thing; knowing, but deliberately ignoring it, is quite another.  But the price Federal and Postal employees pay for when a bureaucracy engages in practices which clearly defy the clear mandate of legal requirement, results in preemptive actions which ultimately lead to another day in Court, to argue that which one thought was previously already established.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: The Distant Whisperings of Change

When the warning signs in the sky prophesize that it is time to go to the promised land of Federal or Postal Disability Retirement

Sometimes, it is a gnawing sense; other times, a faint murmur whispering a warning of wayward paths impending upon the precipice of time, urging one to consider a different trail to take; but more often, it is not the distant sound of the mountains which we fail to consider; rather, it is that we selectively hear, but deliberately ignore.

Medical conditions tend to betray us; they do not provide the subtlety of quiet and gentle reminders, and when they do, the progressive nature of the drumbeat of persistent pain, chronicity of signs, and incessant expansion of deteriorating dimensions call for an attention which refuses to be avoided.

Change is often and inevitable aspect of life.

For Federal and Postal employees 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, the need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal Worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the growing nature of one’s debilitating medical condition cannot be ignored.

If the precept of life is accepted, and change is an inevitable component of the precondition for the future, then ignoring the warning signs impending is merely to delay the consequences of that which is existentially fateful.  Unlike the sound of the mountain permeating the morning sunrise, where the mist of calm begins to lift like angels in the twilight of heaven, medical conditions which require a change in one’s life must be acknowledged and accepted.

Federal OPM Disability Retirement is a benefit offered to all Federal and Postal workers who have the minimum 18 months of Federal Service under FERS, and 5 years under CSRS; it allows for the Federal and Postal employee to move forward in life, and not remain stuck in the misery of changelessness. As change is the bellwether for the future, so remaining stuck is to ignore the distant whisperings of change, and the inevitable necessity of acting.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire