Reflections on Winter’s Desolation and OPM Disability Retirement

Seasons bring out certain characteristics and traits of primate natures; and while artificial lighting, civilized constructs of community comforts and technological distractions of virtual reality may somewhat temper the appetitive rhythms of inherent evolutionary origins, the fact is that our attempts to suspend the reality of our nature can only be met with partial success.  Winter is a time of desolation (unless, of course, one’s home is based in a climate where seasons barely change, in which case the envy of others will reach you through temporal vibrations of mental jealousies).

Somehow, medical conditions become magnified exponentially; physical pain is exacerbated, and psychiatric despair becomes quantifiable. Statistically, there is no greater number of filings for Federal Disability Retirement during one season as opposed to another; but in reality, it is probably more a sense that, as the trees are stripped bare of leaves and the greenery of lawns and nature’s interludes are crisp with reminders of decay, the beatitudes of distracting influences become minimized, and one can turn inward and make a careful assessment of one’s future.

Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers 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, need to ultimately make that decision, and take that step of affirmative evaluation and assessment, in determining the course of one’s future.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is a serious matter, and one where consideration of all factors should be carefully performed.  But how does one go about properly and thoroughly performing the necessary evaluative process?  Often, insular rumination by a singular voice of counsel is less than effective; being one’s own counsel in matters of importance rarely provides an alternative perspective, which is what is needed in matters of gravity.

Seeking the advice and guidance of someone who knows and understands the process, and what the administrative and bureaucratic pitfalls and potential problems one is likely to encounter, is the first step in making a wise decision.

For, while winter’s desolation may allow for the revelation of the nakedness of nature, it is man’s plight which must be considered with open eyes and careful scrutiny, beyond the lonely swirl of the crinkling leaf which floats in the endless time of a hardened ground as it falls far from the tree which sheds itself in winter’s gloom.

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

OPM Disability Retirement: The Problem of Perhaps

Perhaps it is time to approach the problem from a different perspective; perhaps it is not.  We often engage in games of self-delusions, of allowing words of self-justification to interfere with sequential and linear lines of thinking, in order to bypass the harsh reality of what is often an inevitability.

The allowance of bifurcation of thought — of the logical disjunctive of choices and options to choose from — makes an allowance of pretense to procrastinate in intellectually acceptable ways.  We sound thoughtful and intelligent when we weigh the various alternatives.  And, indeed, it is normally a “good thing” to gather, review and evaluate the options open to us, and to make the proper decision based upon such an analysis.  But at some point in the process, continuing in a morass of intellectualization becomes problematic.

When the choices are limited, clear, and necessary to act upon, to play the “perhaps” game becomes merely a way to delay the inevitable.

For the Federal and Postal employee who must contemplate a drastic change of circumstances by preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, engaging in such mind-games merely prolongs the process.  At some point, action must proceed from thought; and for the Federal and Postal Worker whose medical condition is such that it impacts one’s ability to perform the essential elements of one’s job, it is the action which must prevail over the perhapses of our mind.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Confusion & Disarray

A state of confusion and disarray can work in either direction; either the confused state of affairs can lead to a successful outcome (resulting from the inability to make a logically correct decision, but where a favorable outcome may randomly occur); or the state of disarray can result in a detrimental consequence, also arising from the state of confusion.  The former is often random in scope; the latter is more predictable.

Reliance on the potentiality that it “may come out right” is normally not the best course of action to take.  As such, if one is confused about a subject, an issue, etc., it is often a wise step to take to consult with someone who can unravel the layers of obfuscation surrounding an issue or circumstance.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, a repetitive thread of frustration heard throughout the process — both in a procedural sense, as well as the underlying substantive approach to completion — is the confusion of the forms themselves, the information needed to prove one’s case, and the necessity of coordination in matters of bureaucratic steps.

The obstacle of confusion and disarray is not one which is merely felt by any unique individual; it is pervasive, and you are “not alone” in the matter.  The fact is, the entire administrative process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is indeed a confusing one, and one fraught with a state of disarray.

It is thus important to approach the entire process with a logical, sequential methodology, in order to find one’s way out of the darkness of a black hole.  The universe may well have all sorts of unexplainable phenomena and voids; the Federal process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits may well be one of them.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Key Words and Phrases

In every writing endeavor, there arises over time an identification of the efficacy of certain key words and phrases.  The problem with such identification, however, is that the deliberate extrapolation and insertion of such “keys” will often lead to over usage, inapplicable repetition, and loss of effectiveness resulting from the very recognition of the centrality and importance of such words and phrases.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, there is often a tendency to want to know what the “key” is to the successful outcome of a Federal Disability Retirement case.  It is like searching for the entrance to a secret passage:  we believe that if X is discovered, inserted into the proper keyhole, then the mysteries of that which we fail to understand will be opened.  But proper flow and substantive appropriateness of any medical terms must always be considered within a greater context.

Ultimately, it is not any particular word or phrase which leads one onto the path of success in a Federal Disability Retirement case; rather, it is the substantive conceptual underpinnings behind such words and phrases which matter.  Not the words themselves; nor the phrases which describe; rather, the meaning behind such words and phrases within the context of the entirety of one’s medical condition — that is the key to a Federal Disability Retirement case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: The Effective Approach

The sales pitch comes from every direction, all vocations, countless product lines and endless announcements of fanfare and ceremony:  the 3-step plan, the 5-point road to success, the 10-ways of X or Y:  it is meant to be a formulaic methodology of achieving a stated goal.

Formulaic approaches are perfectly reasonable; they provide an avenue which, through prior experience of trials and errors, the “seller” has formulated a method or product as the best means possible for achieving success in any given venture.  But the gimmickery of any formulaic approach can wear thin after a manner; and in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, ultimately the fanfare must be supported by three basic elements (see, even the undersigned writer engages in a 3-point plan):  The supporting medical documentation; The supporting statement of disability; The supporting disability law.  Of the three elements, it is the first (the supporting medical documentation) which is paramount and, to borrow (albeit in a non-technical, misused sense) Aristotle’s verbiage, the “first cause” or “First Mover” of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Ultimately, substance over form must prevail, and will be most effective in a Federal Disability Retirement application; and the “substance” in this case is the medical condition itself — one which needs no fanfare, and certainly no 10-point plan for effective advocacy.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: The Efficacy of an Argument

If a security system is never triggered, can one conclude that it has been effective?  Is the failure of a system more telling than its lack of use?  Can the negation of a fact be used to prove its existence and the validity of a theoretical construct?  Can one argue, See — X did not occur; therefore Y must have occurred?  In terms of pure propositional logic and its internal system of validity, one can conclude that certain logical constructs are on their face invalid and contain fallacies.

This was one of Wittgenstein’s points concerning human language games:  the very self-contained artifice of the universe of meaning possesses no reflective correspondence to the physical world; and, in today’s parallel universe of the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, emails, etc., the technological artifice which encapsulates so much of our lives only serves to exponentially magnify such lack of corresponding significance.

In making legal arguments in a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is often important to understand the context within which the legal argument is being made.  One never knows whether, and to what extent, any particular legal argument is effective; and sometimes all that can be made is the pretext of the argument, and to leave the substantive impact for future application.

For example, does the fact that a person has received a “proposed removal” have the same impact as one who has in fact been removed for his or her medical inability to perform one’s job?  Or, similarly, does a person who receives a VA rating determination of “unemployability” have the same impact as one who is allocated with a 90% disability rating, arrived at through various lesser ratings and combinations thereof?

The effectiveness of any argument will depend upon the level of persuasion employed; the level of persuasion will be contingent upon the validity of the sequential connections of often independent logical statements; and the force of a conclusion will be determined by the strength of its weakest link.  If an argument of negation must be employed, take care to do so by linking it to an undeniable fact.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire