Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: The Simulated Life

We all engage in it, to some extent; it is all in the “extent”, however, that matters.  The manufacturing of something which approaches the original; of pretending “as if”; they all constitute a simulation of sorts.  Whether of an expensive handbag that is made in another country where labor is cheap and copy-catting is the norm; or merely a smile when you actually want to cry; or of the rote response to, “Hi. How are you doing?” — where we reflexively declare, “Fine, and how about you?” — when in fact you are not doing “fine” but instead are forced to simulate the required rhythm of normalcy.

Society requires the simulated life until life itself becomes too real such that it must crawl out from the cocoon of artificial existence.  It is as if the metamorphosis from one form of existence into another must by force erupt, and that is the point when reality must by necessity force its being into existence.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition where, each day, a simulated existence must be lived because to do otherwise might mean that you may lose your job, consideration should be given to possibly filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, especially when the real life being lived — the pain and anguish from a medical condition — can no longer remain contained within the cocoon of a simulated life.

Federal Disability Retirement allows for a lifetime annuity that lets you focus upon your health, and thus circumvents the simulated life and instead allows you to be the “real” you, and not some manufactured form of a fake smile, a forced joy or an artificial existence.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Retirement for Mental or Physical Incapacity: Of persuasive effect

What does it mean to possess “of persuasive effect”?  If a person argues in a debate for endless hours, and at the end of it all, various people from the watchful audience turn aside to one another and declare, “Well, he sure was persuasive, but I’m still going to vote for the other guy” — what can such a statement mean?  If an acknowledgment of persuasion nevertheless results in an opposite conclusion, can one still maintain that there existed any degree of the very element which was supposed to modulate otherwise?

And legal precedents which must be applied — say, in a Federal Disability Retirement case, where the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is “required by law” to consider certain elements, such as under the Bruner case or the Simpkins case and subsequent case-law holdings which “mandate” that OPM consider the proffered evidence as cited by a Legal Memorandum — do they necessitate a certain outcome, or is it merely “persuasive but not determinative”, and what does that mean?  Is it that the level of persuasion was just “not enough”, and while it might have come somewhat close, it just didn’t have that final “clincher” to put it over the goal line?

And if we know beforehand that “persuasive effect” won’t necessarily result in a “determinative impact”, do we just not try at all, or is the mere possibility of “tipping the balance in one’s favor” enough to try and attempt to persuade?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, and where preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application becomes necessary, the impact of a Legal Memorandum — prepared and submitted along with the Federal Disability Retirement “packet” — is like traveling with Google Maps guiding one into unfamiliar territory.  Without it, the reviewing “specialist” at OPM will simply be presented with a stack of information with no indexing or cover sheet.

With it, the importance of persuasive effect is there to guide the OPM reviewer into seeing what is relevant and what is not; of the legal cases that are impactful and persuasive; and of the mandated requirements in applying the proper legal criteria, and not merely of empty arguments that seemingly possess of persuasive effect, but lead to conclusions otherwise left without direction.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Legal Representation: Paradoxes

Quine, probably the greatest logician since Bertrand Russell, notes that paradoxes often occur as a result of presumed beliefs otherwise left unstated, and once they are “fleshed out” through query and made explicit via closer scrutiny and analysis, the portion which befuddles often disappears.  Confusion within a language game, of course, is often a large part of it, and certain unstated preconditions and assumed facts otherwise implicit and hidden will leave the stated portion incomplete such that others must come along and unravel the mystery.

In a similar vein, statements made as “necessarily” so also retain unstated presumptions.  Thus, if we claim that “the sun will rise tomorrow”, we are asserting that it is “necessarily so”.  If a child asks, “Why is that so”, we will often revert to nothing more than Hume’s response that because it has always risen in the past, and the revolution of planets and rotation of the earth around the sun has been a reliable compass upon which we can depend, it is the regularity of events in the past that determine the necessary expectation of repetition for the future.

It is, then, those unstated or “hidden” presumptions that made certain statements and claims unclear, and the job of an attorney is to clarify that which is left in a muddle.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where it becomes necessary to file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the questions surrounding paradoxes and necessity can be important.

Medical conditions can certainly be paradoxes.  Without explanation, they can debilitate, progressively deteriorate and impact a person’s ability and capacity to continue on as before.  Even with a medical diagnosis, prescribed course of treatment and sometimes surgical intervention, they may remain a befuddlement because of a lack of knowledge or explanation.

Having such a medical condition may nevertheless require that the Federal or Postal employee file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits because the Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job.  The filing itself becomes a “necessity”.

The gap between the paradox of the medical condition and the necessity of filing a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management becomes quite clear: Necessity does not equal entitlement, and the paradox must be proven.  In doing so, implicit facts must be explained and explicated, and more than an argument of “because it has always been so” will have to be put forward to persuade OPM of the viability of one’s case.

To that extent, do not allow for concealed and presumed “facts” to defeat your Federal Disability Retirement application, and never allow your statement of facts to remain a paradox, lest it become “necessary” to engage further steps of appealing the Federal Disability Retirement process in pursuance of an approval from OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: House of Cards

We have all built them as children; those shantytown assemblages like the poverty-stricken and make-shift huts constructed by corrugated debris gathered from refuse and discarded materials, flimsy and ready to collapse, if not by architectural fault lines, then certainly from the sudden and malicious puff of air emitted by one’s younger brother or sister tiptoeing  up from behind in a sneak attack.  The House of Cards — they test the dexterity and patience of one’s character, and simultaneously represent anything built on a precarious foundation, including business ventures, family relationships, and of life itself.

For the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to perform the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional duties, the concept of a House of Cards can become quite personal, and in the modern proverbial metaphor, “hit close to home”.

Daily, the precarious and tenuous state of one’s employment status is tested by sudden and unexpected winds of fate, by sneak attacks and underhanded methods of operational malice.  A sudden stir of the atmosphere, a deliberate act of adversity, or the unsuspected whisper of undermining; they all amount to the same:  an attempt to further weaken the foundations which were already being tested.

The option the Federal or Postal employee needs to consider, is to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, because if the foundation of one’s life has already become shaky, the fall itself is an inevitability when confronted by the vast behemoth of the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service.

Just as 2 out of the 3 little pigs came to understand and appreciate the necessity of a firm foundation, so the Federal or Postal employee should see the wisdom in fleeing from under the House of Cards, and consider filing for Federal OPM Disability Retirement benefits; for, they ran to the third when they could, and lucky for them, the Big Bad Wolf could not get to them — at least not in some versions of the tale.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Attorney: Farmer’s Market

They have cropped up everywhere, and have become popular sites where suburbanites can sense a closer connection to the food they put on their tables.  But as with all seasonal exchanges, the level of interaction is based upon the changing environment, the availability of produce, and the trending nuances of health, life and manner of living.

In the wintertime, the abandoned stalls and the empty inventory tells of a change of seasons.  We walk, observe, pick and choose, and if the color of the tomato doesn’t quite seem right, we pass by with nary a nod, or word of silent question mark.  Which side of the Farmer’s market are we on, in any given day?  Are we the seller of produce, or the buyer of selective goods?  Do the seasons change, and the temperatures ebb and flow, and are we malleable like the sea breezes that touch upon a morning surf?

Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers often feel the interchangeable position, and the vulnerability on any given day, based upon the changing of seasons.  Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition impacts one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, are likened to Farmer’s markets which come and go, and who set up stalls for selling of goods and produce, or were once like visitors looking for something different than the frozen foods at the chain supermarkets.

Once, the sense of being in control prevailed — whether in displaying one’s produce as the seller, or as the consumer choosing based upon the look of the fruit or vegetable.  Then, suddenly a medical condition comes into play, and options seem to diminish; whether from the perspective of the merchant, or of the buyer, you can’t seem to last the season in either role.

The option of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is something that becomes a necessity for the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from a medical condition which prevents one from performing the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job.

Like the changing of seasons, it brings to the fore the availability of one’s “product”, and makes of one the onlooker who doesn’t purchase, as well as the weekend merchant who tenders at the local Farmer’s Market, only to get back to one’s “real job” of toil and turmoil, like the rest of society who must contend with the forces of nature’s changing seasons.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Laws: Confirmation and Affirmation

The former is both a religious sacrament in Church doctrine, as well as a state of establishing that something is true or correct; the latter, an act or statement of support for that which was previously thought to be so.  Both imply a previous state of foreknowledge, or at least an indication of some prior existence of validity; it merely needed a further stamp of approval or attestation of verification.  And that is how most opinions are sought, aren’t they?  In our own minds, we already know the answer; the search for counsel is not for new revelation, but merely a confirmation of that which we know, and the affirmation of what is needed to be done.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition impacts the capacity and ability of being able to perform the essential elements of one’s positional duties, the recognition for the need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is determined far in advance of any phone call to an attorney for guidance and counsel.

The search for “advice”, as the term is loosely presented, is often to merely confirm that which is already known, and to affirm the process which has already been discovered.  For, the medical condition itself already tells the Federal or Postal employee of the necessity of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, and the agency’s unfriendly and often hostile response has established the harbinger of one’s future.

Like secrets between nations and skeletons in one’s proverbial closet, the preparation, formulation and filing of Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM is somewhat of a formality; it was known already for quite some time, but the Federal and Postal employee just needed to confirm and affirm the inevitability of necessity already revealed, but wanting of declaration.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire