Federal Disability Retirement Attorney: The Second, Reconsideration Stage

It is not a reflection upon the validity of one’s medical condition; a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management can mean multiple things, not the least of which may include:  insufficient proof failing to rise to the level of satisfying the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Federal Disability Retirement applications are compiled in a myriad of manners; yes, the standard forms themselves tend to compel a certain semblance of conformity, but ultimately the strength of a case will depend upon the supportive documentation attached, and here is “the rub”:  there still exists the “human element” in the reviewing analysis of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Yes, certain sets of legal criteria are applied (but who and how are they interpreted in their application?); and while satisfaction of the legal criteria is supposed to be determined by the general principle of “preponderance of the evidence“, who and what complies with meeting such a standard?  How is such satisfaction determined?  Such questions, of course, imply a human element in the administrative process of an OPM Disability Retirement review, and whether we like it or not, reveals an underlying connection to imperfection and fallibility.

There is no mathematical algorithm of mechanistic applications which will completely correct the underlying problems inherent in human review within the context of a bureaucratic process.  Fortunately, however, the process itself contains a self-corrective device: different stages and levels of review, which allows for the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker to provide additional supportive documentation in order to reinforce and strengthen one’s Federal Disability Retirement case.

There are limitations, however, and that is why “corrective action” at the Second, Reconsideration Stage of the administrative process of Federal Disability Retirement is just that — it is to “correct” the mistakes, lapses and inherent lack identified in the original Federal Disability Retirement packet.  The “limitations” are set by law, and are determined by how one characterizes one’s medical conditions in the Statement of Disability as perpetuated on SF 3112A.

Care should always be taken, of course, in the initial preparation of a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, and before it is forwarded through one’s agency to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  But in the end, one must recognize that the entirety of the administrative process is one which involves multiple stages of a bureaucratic procedure, and the Second, Reconsideration Stage is merely another level of self-regulating refinement to ensure that the human element, including mistakes and misapplication of the law, is expunged to the extent possible, and instead, that the objective application of the law is uniformly dispensed in order to reach a statistically acceptable algorithm of fairness and impartial determination.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Random Happenstance

A determination concerning the random nature of a material and unconscious universe can only come about in contrast to a recognition that there is a comparison to be made, to its opposite corollary — that of a teleological state where will, consciousness and deliberation of action occurs.

Thus, one can bemoan the random happenstance of events, but to complain of an inherent “unfairness” becomes a self-contradiction, precisely because to do so is to declare otherwise than to acknowledge its aimless appearance and entrance into the consciousness before one who recognizes the arbitrary realm of an otherwise impervious and unfeeling world.

Further, while inanimate objects and their movement within the universe may further establish the arbitrary catapult of nature’s actions, when human decisions, and acts engaged by animals who are clearly aware of deliberative encounters interact within the arc of intersecting symmetries, one must always consider the history of how things came about, before determining whether or not the lack of teleological consequences betrays a truly random happenstance.

Medical conditions tend to prove the point.  Why does X occur to Y, but not to Z?  That is a question which involves an underlying sense of declaring the “unfairness” of a circumstance.  Whether genetic inheritance, an excess of negative and detrimental exposures, or perhaps an aimless accident resulting in injury, most often one will never know.  Doctors can discuss the contextual historicity of origins, but in the end, the medical condition must be accepted, and engaged.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers whose lives have been impacted by a medical condition, where the medical condition begins to prevent one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties with the Federal government or the U.S. Postal Service, the time to consider the random happenstance of one’s condition, or whether there is behind it a purpose or lesson to be gleaned, is best put off for another day.

Instead, the practicalities of life’s mandates should prevail, and one such deliberative consideration is to determine whether filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, should be one of the options to entertain.   Federal Disability Retirement benefits allow for the Federal and Postal worker to maintain health insurance, continue an income based upon an annuity of 60% of the average of one’s highest 3 consecutive years of service for the first year of being an annuitant, and 40% every year thereafter, until age 62, at which point it becomes automatically converted to regular retirement; and, moreover, the number of years one is on Federal Disability Retirement counts towards the total number of years of Federal Service.

Yes, life’s random happenstance can sometimes appear unexpectedly, and seem unfair in a universe where we map out our existence from birth to death; but it is important to recognize that beyond the laws of physics allowable in the physical world of an impervious nature, there are no rules of the game except the ones we employ through devices concocted within the artifice of our own imaginations.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Procedural Hurdles

Bureaucratic complexities have become a part of everyday life.  When societies become entrenched in administrative procedures, where the process itself is paramount over the substantive goals intended to achieve, and the proper filing of standard forms cannot be ignored lest the conformity of all is undermined by the exception of the singular; then, it is declared that progress has been made, the height of civilization has been achieved, and the pinnacle of human inventiveness has been reached.

Whether one agrees with the satire of bureaucratic conundrums or not, the reality is that the inherent complexities of government must be contended with, and attempting to subvert or otherwise evade the necessity of completing standardized procedural methodologies is an act of futility bordering on rebellion.

For injured/ill Federal employees and Postal Workers who must consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, or even CSRS Offset, the importance of overcoming procedural hurdles cannot be overstated.  SF 3112A, SF 3112B, SF 3112C & SF 3112D must be completed for all Federal and Postal employees filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset; and for FERS Federal and Postal Workers, one must also complete SF 3107 (as opposed to SF 2801 for CSRS & CSRS Offset Federal and Postal employees).

And, while there are ways to provide additional addendum information beyond that which can fit within the neat spaces provided on the standard forms themselves, nevertheless, it is necessary to follow the rules and abide by the bureaucracy of conformity.  Yes, administrative hurdles are a headache and a difficulty to overcome; but, no, you cannot ignore them, as the reality of administrative and bureaucratic headaches is a constancy we must live with in a society deemed to be the pinnacle of human achievement and progress.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Attorney