OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer: Life’s Dispensation

It is often a word which is accompanied with the adjective, “special“, as in “special dispensation”; but a close review of such a phrase would reveal the redundancy of placing the two words together.  For, to have a dispensation is to be offered a unique situation where one is already exempted from the usual and customary rules applicable; and to insert the adjective, “special’, adds little to the exclusionary nature of the occasion.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, and where the medical condition is beginning to impact one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties occupied in the Federal sector and U.S. Postal Service, it is the disability and medical condition itself which gives rise to the dispensation requested, demanded or otherwise warranted.

That is precisely why resentment, hostility and exclusion occurs as a reactionary response by the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service: because special treatment outside of the normal rules of employment tend to engender such negative responses.

Filing for FMLA; requesting an accommodation in order to continue working; becoming entangled in EEO Complaints, grievances and the like — they all set you apart, and require actions outside of the normative parameters of daily relationships within the employment sector.  And that ultimate reaction by the agency, of “sticking it to the guy” even when it involves a medical condition impacting one’s employment and livelihood — one wonders, how can others be so cruel?  It is justified precisely through the psychology of the “herd mentality“, reduced to its most natural form in a single question:  “Who does that guy think he is?”

For Federal and Postal employees, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it often becomes necessary to follow up with the ultimate dispensation of that which one’s employment offers — that of filing for Federal Disability Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

It is not always the case that an employment package offers an annuity which (A) provides for continuation of insurance benefits and (B) allows one to work in a different vocation while receiving the annuity; but Federal Disability Retirement allows for both, so when the situation arises and there is a dispensation which reveals a solution to a problem, it is indeed a special circumstance which should be recognized as such, while ignoring the redundancy of life’s tautology.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Disambiguation

Aside from being an ugly word, it begins with the premise of negation and mistake.  As a reversing force, it clearly undermines the root word and takes away from the primary centrality of meaning.  It is the ambiguity which needs to be corrected.

In narrative forms, where stated purpose is important to convey, to begin with a lack of communicative clarity presents a problem of origins.  Where one begins; how one came to be formed; the historical context of one’s existence; these are all contained in the roots of the pretext of being:  “The beginning…”

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers embarking upon the voyage of formulating, preparing and 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, the important lessons to be gleaned from such a concept is that the vehicle of the written word is best put forth at the outset without a later need for correction.

Arguing one’s medical condition, and the linguistic bridge between one’s positional description of duties for a Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service job, requires a clear and linear methodology of logical argumentation.  Preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application should not lead the reviewer at OPM to scratch one’s head in confusion; rather, there should be an unwavering “point-by-point” roadmap like an unequivocal teleology of straight and narrow discourse, without confusion, without puzzlement, and certainly without the creation of an endless maze.

There are times when convoluted discourse has an intended effect, and where lack of core clarity may have its advantages (look, for instance, at politicians who dissemble for obvious reasons on those sensitive “issues” during a debate); but walking on a bridge without railings on a thick misty morning has its dangers, and it is better not to have fallen, than to learn that the depths of the rushing waters below requires more than just an ordinary swimmer’s strength.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire