OPM Medical Retirement: The Long, Hard Slog

Much of life can be characterized as such, and those unwilling to endure the concept are either left behind or end in interminable voids of unsolvable problems.  The slog itself is long, hard and uninteresting — one of making it through the day, of life activities, lacking meaning or substance, often unexciting and barely tolerable.

Especially in this country, where we have lost any sense of community, and we barely even know our neighbors, leaving aside our own family.  Life becomes a long, hard slog when relationships break down and we come to believe that “meaning” is attached to objects and possessions, or in having a “cause” to believe in.

Like Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the hill only to see it roll back down the other side, we wonder perpetually and question daily the meaning of it all.

We have abandoned the idea of  “the true, the beautiful, and the good” — the triadic concept which can be traced back to Plato paralleling the fields of knowledge, art, and morality, essentially encompassing the Western Philosophical tradition which provided the foundation of our educational system.

However, since we no longer believe in truth, have denigrated art, and abandoned morality, we are left with an anarchy of thoughtless vacuity where we are each isolated by the grandness of our own opinions.  Everywhere the seams of civilization appear to be unraveling, and we are left alone with the hard and long slog.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal employees who suffer from a chronic illness or injury which further complicates and exacerbates the long hard slog, it must be understood that the process of attempting to be approved for FERS Disability Retirement benefits itself is a long bureaucratic slog itself — a reflective microcosm of the greater societal long slog, and it must be viewed as such if you are to survive the battles ahead.

In preparing for that long and hard slog, you may want to contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and consider what it will take to prepare of the long administrative slog of trying to win the battle against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS laws.

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.

 

Federal Disability Retirement Law: The Bridge of Logic

In an era of idealism (a historical time slot which we are not presently experiencing), it may have been thought that the concept itself would bring greater harmony, world peace, empathy for the disabled, and a larger sense of community.

The Western, Aristotelian view of a “good life” involved the refusal to submit to extremes — whether of passions, beliefs, gluttony or feelings — and that moderation was the key to a balanced life, where the appetitive nature of man would be mastered by one’s intellect.  Bertrand Russell borrowed from this tradition, and defined the “good life” as one “inspired by love and guided by knowledge”, where the feelings and passions of a person would be constrained and directed by the bridge of logic.

The metaphorical play of a “bridge” — an image evoking a “connection” or a “nexus” — leading away from the natural passions inherent in Man, is an interesting one.  For, it somewhat presumes (A) a necessity and need for such a path leading away from the nature of Man, and (B) that somehow logic does not constitute and comprise the natural state of man, but is a needed addendum in order to “civilize” an otherwise unruly beast.

Perhaps that is so, and certainly in modernity the bridge of logic is in need of major repairs.

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 basic elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, make sure that the health condition itself — of the pain, of physical and psychological dysfunctioning resulting from the health condition — does not dominate in your persuasive argumentation in presenting your case to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Rather, the Bridge of Logic must be carefully employed — of the nexus between your medical condition and the essential elements of your positional duties.

Contact an experienced lawyer who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law, and don’t let the disrepair of modernity’s bridge of logic be the loss of a pathway necessary to connect the necessary eligibility requirements in an OPM Federal Disability Retirement filing.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill

Attorney 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 under FERS: The Advocate

It is the ability to see things that you may not; of knowing the laws that apply, the arguments which will work, the evidence to be submitted; these, and many more, make “the advocate” worth the price to be paid.  Certainly, expenses have to be considered, but as the old adage goes, “You get what you pay for”, and you need to be careful in considering what is included.

When you call the office which you are considering as your “advocate”, does someone call you back fairly soon after leaving a voicemail?  Do you get to speak to an actual lawyer — the one who should be working on your case, or do you — instead — only speak to a paralegal or someone who claims the title of, “Disability Specialist”?

What, in fact, is a “Disability Specialist”?  If not a lawyer, then no amount of “specialty” in the field makes a bit of difference.  Who will be working on your case?  Will your case be sloughed off to some clerk or “legal specialist”, or will you actually be getting what you think you are paying for — an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from OPM, contact Robert R. McGill, Attorney at Law, and be assured that he himself, and not someone else, will be working on your case.  He will, indeed, be “The Advocate” who will fight on your behalf.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement under FERS: Know Thyself

As to the familiar saying — of “knowing one’s self” — what can it possibly mean?  The saying, “Know thyself”, was inscribed on various temples in Ancient Egypt and was known to be one of the Delphic maxims.

Socrates, of course, taught a variation of the statement, contending that the “unexamined life is not worth living” — but the question which immediately comes to the fore is: At what point do we examine ourselves?  Is it a daily, continuous engagement?  Do we wait until we reach various stages of our lives before proposing such an examination?

For most of us, we don’t have the time or energy that Socrates had — of constantly stirring up trouble and pestering and peppering this person or that with questions that are meant to confound, confuse, irritate and provoke; and to examine one’s life is to constantly ask questions which we may know not the answers to.

Is it the questioning itself which is so important (one might posit that such an approach to life is precisely what Socrates himself believed)?  Were the questions posed by Socrates actually answerable, or were they just rhetorical flourishes meant to undermine the accepted, normative conclusions of the day?

To that extent — of questions without necessarily expecting any definitive answers — perhaps if Socrates were to appear in this age, he would be overjoyed with the way in which we live today: of therapy accepted as the modality of self-examination; of the explosion of “self-help” books and the payment-for-services of “life coaches” and “experts” on “living”.

Ultimately, “knowing thyself” is an endeavor that has no boundaries and cannot expect definitive answers, precisely because the “self” is an ever-expanding phenomena and “knowing” is never a static activity.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition is preventing the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the maxim of “Know Thyself” is an important element in making a decision concerning Federal Disability Retirement.

You must know what your job is; what your physical or mental capabilities are; and whether you can continue on in the job that you hold.  Further, it is the maxim itself which should lead you to consult with a Federal Disability Retirement Attorney, that is, a lawyer who specializes in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application; for, in the end, to know thyself is to gather knowledge from all sources in an effort to “know” and to clarify the boundaries of “thyself”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Having something to say

There are people who speak volumes in voluminous volubility, but of thinness of content and lacking of much substance.  Then, there is that quiet person in the corner, perhaps distracted by someone’s glancing comment or lost in his own thoughts who, when asked about a topic of general interest to all in a group, articulates in a single sentence what others have attempted to encapsulate in a paragraph, a page, or perhaps a Dickensian novel.

Having something to say is the linguistic equivalent of wanting to be noticed, needing to be relevant and asking to be loved.  The capitalistic rule of supply-and-demand works within other and foreign contexts, as well — that when the supply of articulation exceeds the demand sought, the diminishment of value in words is proportional to the content of relevance.

Of course, the general truism which becomes reduced to an inane thought is that we “all have something to say” — that is to say, each one of us can make a contribution to the general pool of solutions, ideas, thoughts, etc.  But if everyone can be everything to everybody, then nothing comes from nothing where something is devalued because everything is nothing — in other words, the diminishment of value because supply exceeds so much of a lesser demand.

There are times, of course, when — whether we have something to say or not — it becomes necessary to express something; to express it well; and to express it with clarity and conciseness of thought.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have come to a point where filing for Federal Disability Retirement has become a necessity, “Having something to say” becomes important because of the requirement of filing SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability as part of the FERS Disability Retirement packet.  The questions posed on SF 3112A appear simple; but do not mistake “simple” for “simplicity” — for, within the content of the simple are a jumble of complexities that are interconnected with legal precedents and court rulings.

Language is a funny animal; it requires thought beyond the pool of language one is familiar with, and it is the unfamiliar which can become the cliff over which one can fall, and to prevent the calamities which one may not be aware of, it is best to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to make sure that when you have something to say, it is posited with knowledge and legal counsel.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Legal Representation: Simplicity

There is certainly something to be said about it.  But, then, by adding to the very word itself, there is always a danger of complicating the very concept implied from the singular word that stands alone as a paradigm of striving, a goal to attain, an end to achieve.

“Simplicity” is a state of being, a characteristic of existence and the pinnacle of wishes in dreams fantasized.  Yet, nowhere in the historical archives of any fairytales of yore, in whatever form and differences of versions presented — you know, the one that involves a genie who allows for 3 wishes to be granted to the lucky one — do you find the individual request: Simplicity.

No, instead, it is the complex which is always wished for: More wealth; the key to the universe; eternal youth; to be the “greatest X”; or any other of a number of states of being or accumulation of stuff that will only further complicate one’s life.  Never, ever, does one wish for: Simplicity.  Yes, that is what everyone all over the world always claims to be striving for, while at the same time doing everything in order to undermine it.  Does one think that acquiring greater wealth, being granted eternal immortality or an extended childhood of innocence will result in the attainment of simplicity?

And of the world that promises anything but delivers short on everything, the empty palms begin to echo hollow: This new technological gadget X will be a greater time-saver and will “simplify” your life; and that shortcut invention Y will allow you to “spend more time doing the things you want to do”…  If we could bottle up all of the minutes promised to have been saved for every gadget offered, we should all be living the life of simplicity in a stress-free universe.

What becomes apparent is that simplicity is a malleable concept that cannot so easily be defined, and is bundled up with a conundrum of complexities depending upon one’s perspective and viewpoint.  For example, for the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from a medical condition and who needs to file a Federal Disability Retirement application — is the process of presenting proof to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management a matter of administrative simplicity such that completing SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, can be accomplished without proper legal guidance?

The form itself looks simple enough; the questions posed, an artwork of simplicity; and the space in the boxes provide, a simple couple of inches of allowances; so how can such simplicity present a complexity of legal entanglements?

Until, of course, one realizes that simplicity is often the trap for the unweary: look upon that pinnacle of simplicity wrapped in the morning sunlight where the dew forms upon a spider’s web — ah, such simplicity in nature, awaiting the unweary to be trapped and irreversibly enmeshed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Legal Representation: Sad stories

Is sadness relative?  Are there sad stories that are so sad that even the ones that were considered sad prior to the sadder story being told, somehow nullify the lesser sad stories and make them into not sad stories?  Do we, after hearing the sadder tale, turn to the first story teller and say, “Yours was not so sad, after all, and in fact you have it pretty good”?

If a person tells of having just buried his mother, and you ask, “How old was she?”  He responds, “She was 95”.  Then, someone else says, “I just had to bury my 5 year old daughter.”  There would be a dead silence, would there not?  Surely, we say to ourselves, the death of a person who had a long life is not nearly as sad as the ending of one so tender in years, and as death is merely a part of life, there is something inherently sadder about the child’s life ending than that of a person who had a long life?

Both represent a life ended, but it is the knowledge that the former had fulfilled the natural course of a life while the latter was the victim of an early tragedy, unnaturally ended and interrupted for all of its promise, hope and anticipation for the future – surely, there is a qualitative difference between the two sad tales?

Or of someone who was recently fired from a job and is desperately trying to seek new employment; say that person is looking through the want-ads in the employment section (yes, yes, that is entirely outdated nowadays with special apps for resume-sharing and online submissions, etc.), and in the course of searching, reads a story about a far-off country where war, famine and general devastation are ongoing, and discovers with interest a sub-story about a family that is homeless and is being hunted down by enemies, etc.  Does one at that point straighten one’s posture and declare, “Wow, even though I am jobless, I have it pretty good in comparison to that family in country X”?

Yet, if sadness is relative, does that necessarily negate the sad tale completely, or does it merely reduce its impact and value until another comparative judgment is made?  Do we go and search out a less sad tale after debunking the sadness of one’s own with a sadder tale, in order to “restore” the sadness of our own?  Or, does each sadness remain a sadness in isolation regardless of the comparative sadness to another’s?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the sadness of that medical condition becomes such and to an extent where the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, it may become necessary to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, ultimately filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Sadness aside, every tale of ending a career is a sadness in and of itself, but the key to getting beyond any such sadness rests in the next steps, not in the footsteps of one’s past or those of others, but in getting good legal advice and moving on into the next phase of one’s future.  Anything else would, whether in comparison to another’s sadness or not, be the truly sad tale of sadness defined.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Early Disability Retirement from Federal Employment: “Can” and “have to”

Does freedom allow and liberty mandate, or have the two concepts been conflated such that we envision a proverbial “free-for-all” in either and both instances?

Much of human history has been comprised of the latter – of Kantian obligatory categories imposed upon human behavior.  It is only of recent vintage that modernity has spurned the traditional categorical imperatives that wills the ought which spurs one to have to initiate, engage and complete activities despite a want of denial.  Today, the thought of “have to” is but a mere passing and flittering touch upon a calloused conscience no longer enlivened enough to compel movement, and “can” is the lie like the Marxist concept of the opiate that makes thoughtlessness the fog that is never lifted, and remains with the common man and the populous at large as the force of subservience throughout.

We are inculcated with the banal repetition of inane nonsense that we “can” do, be, reach anything and everything, and we don’t “have to” do anything that we do not want to.  Yet, concurrently, the implicit science of genetic predisposition dooms the concept of free will, and where once freedom meant something to slaves and their evil traders, and liberty required responsible sensitivity to the greater societal constraints that provide the foundation of a cohesive community, the current level of the combined, unfettered amalgamation – of freedom without restraint and liberty without responsibility – has brought us to the brink of a parallel universe with the history of Rome and its disintegrated empire.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition compels the Federal or Postal employee to “have to” file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, the clash of cultural historicity that we witness all around – of the simplistic tension between freedom and liberty, responsibility and obligation, and “may” and “ought”, comes to the fore because the Federal and Postal worker with a medical condition used to be in a state of “can” when it came to career, leisure, activities and unrestrained potentiality, but now replaced with “have to” because of the intervening forces of an unwelcomed medical condition.

Don’t fret about it; we are all part of a larger force of history; we just never realize it until the coalescence of fate, history, destiny and personal behavior come together, where “can” was never anything but a fiction, anyway, and “have to” was always part of the human dilemma cajoling the rebellious spirit to subvert that which we can never fully avoid – the touch of the gods upon our inner conscience.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Cosmic Intransigence

The complaint is most often heard in a converse manner — that because of the minutiae and daily details required of one’s energy, focus and concentration, the “larger picture” fails to be seen.  But the reverse is just as true:  we often overlook the significance of the mundane, justifying such neglect by arguing that it is the cosmic and universal principles which are of greater relevance; mere human beings within the aegis of humanity, are but flies in a smattering of a decaying universe.

And while grand principles are indeed noble, and provide for paradigms upon which notable historical movements have been based, it is ultimately the monotony of hopes and dreams, as held and projected by youth in turmoil and wanting, which create the sprinkling of golden dust blowing by to sparkle the dreariness of daily toil.  The cosmic will always be intransigent; there is nothing to be done with it, as natural laws, the fate of karmic forces, and the ethereal foundations of the universe will continue to move history, economies and world events forward, with or without the input of ordinary people.

The world is a mere playground for the wealthy and powerful, and the gods which play with the cosmos are already intransigent in their own brutal way.  But that is precisely why the personal problems of individuals amount to so much more than the aggregate of a single life; the “greater picture” will always be there; it is the seemingly insignificant life which makes for beauty and worth.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who become disheartened because of the cosmic intransigence of the “greater picture”, it is precisely the focus upon one’s own life, family, future and time yet left for greater endeavors, which should be the focus of today, the dream of tomorrow and the concentrated efforts of past remembrances.  When a medical condition begins to impact one’s capacity and ability to perform the essential elements of one’s positional duties, the Federal or Postal employee needs to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, precisely because the “larger picture” will always be there, but the smaller details of necessity call for one’s effort in securing one’s place in that greater context.

When one’s health is threatened, the fragile nature of one’s being, the sense of insignificance and loss of place and relevance in society, becomes overwhelming.  But it is precisely within that context that the importance of carrying the burden forth becomes all the more relevant; if not for grander principles, then at least for one’s own self, family, and friends who care.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management may seem like another mundane detail of bureaucratic life which one must pursue, but it is what one can do in the next phase of one’s life that will matter, while all the while the cosmic intransigence of an impervious universe coldly stares back with the laughter of fate and determination to destroy.  It is up to each of us to defy such willfulness of intransigence.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Attorney: Formulating the Effective Case

Is it inherently presupposed that a case to be formulated is one which should be “effective”?  By the insertion of that term, of course, it immediately implies a retrospective vantage point — an “ends” to “means” view of an outcome-based approach.

If a Federal or Postal employee who files for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, receives a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, one assumes that the case was not “effectively” formulated.  On the other hand, if an approval is received from OPM, one need not consider any such issue, but merely moves on to the “when” phase — as in, “When am I going to get paid“?

Outcome-based formulation of a case is never an unwise approach; but the mere fact that a denial is issued by OPM after reviewing a given Federal Disability Retirement application, does not mean that the case itself was not originally “effective” in the formulation and submission.

There are OPM “administrative specialists” who systematically deny cases; certain others who require a higher standard of proof beyond what the law mandates; and even those who extrapolate clear evidence in a denial which establishes eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement, but nevertheless concludes with a disapproval.  Such arbitrary outcomes may seem unfair and unwarranted, but it is a reality which must be faced.

In light of this, the positive outlook to embrace is the fact that Federal OPM Disability Retirement is an administrative process with multiple stages for appeals and additional bites at the proverbial apple.

From the outset, it is always a good idea to carefully prepare, formulate and file an “effective” case; but the mere fact that the first attempt fails to achieve the outcome desired, does not diminish or extinguish the positive assessment reached at the outset when first the OPM Disability Retirement packet was submitted; rather, it just means that additional proof and evidentiary addendum must be forthcoming to satisfy the bureaucratic process of further effectuating the efficacy of an already-effective case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire