OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Flavor’s Envy

Modernity is typified by envy, although no one will admit it.  Envy is aroused when people discover that others possess and enjoy multiple flavors as opposed to the limited ones left for the common element.  Life’s flavors were once quite limited; you worked, ate, possessed a few items and hoped to marry, have children and live a somewhat rewarding life.

Today, with so many reality television shows displaying the extravagance of celebrities, the super-wealthy and those who own half of Hawaii and other exotic locations, flavor’s envy has become widespread.  The antonymic corollary to envy, of course, is discontent — which is likely more prevalent than envy itself.

Envy and discontent go hand in hand, which is precisely why it is never a good idea to go to high school reunions, or any reunions, for that matter.  For, flavor’s envy is always enhanced when one compares one’s past circumstances to the present and current status, and then with it the infringing thoughts of discontent prevail upon us: What could have been; the downtrodden sense of loss and envy.

Flavor’s envy has diffusely spread throughout every corner of society, and the dystopian narrative that many wealthy view as a coming reality — that there will be a world crisis and properties must be protected against the collapse of society — has resulted in private security firms being hired in anticipation of disasters foretold.

Society’s thread is thin and flimsy; it doesn’t take much for a flashpoint to ignite, these days, and flavor’s envy continues to spread in an invisible, microbial manner.  The great “equalizer”, if there is one, is that we are all mortal, and health becomes a reality check for everyone.  When one’s health becomes threatened, flavor’s envy becomes an irrelevancy because, without the former, the latter loses its meaning.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from an illness or disability such that the illness or disability prevents the Federal employee or Postal worker from performing one or more of the basic elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, flavor’s envy fails to have any essential meaning, precisely because the most important element of one’s life has become threatened: Health.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law and consider that Flavor’s Envy is merely a figment and chimera when compared to the importance of focusing upon one’s health.

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: When Life Comes and Bites You in the…

It is a rather crude way of putting it.  In prior generations, such proverbial “talk” was initiated only after a few drinks, and with no “womenfolk” or churchgoing members who had high-minded constraints upon such crudities.  In modernity, it seems that everyone talks with a peppering of 4-letter words.  Is that a  good thing?

The problem with overdoing anything is that, after a time, it begins to lose its efficacy.  A parent who raises his or her voice every time the child misbehaves, is quickly tuned out and ignored — for, the attitude becomes:  “It doesn’t matter what I do; Dad and Mom yell at me, anyway.”  On the other hand, the father or mother who almost never raises his or her voice, but does so when the importance and significance of the issue warrants it, will often have a positive response from the child, precisely because of its rarity.

It is the same concept as the age-old adage of the “boy who cried wolf”.  But crudities have their place, as well.  A person who rarely swears, but one day says in confidence, “You know, sometimes life just comes at you from behind and bites you in the A__” — well, it sets the tone, underlines the seriousness of the opening salvo, and gets your attention immediately.  For, it is not just the crudity of the sentence, or the origin from whence it came; moreover, it is a truth which we all know.

Circumstances and events beyond our control will often impact us in ways we never expected.  And, while we may never have actually been bitten in the hind quarters, the metaphor is one to which we can all relate (or, is it an “analogy”, strictly speaking?).

For Federal employees and U.S. Post Office workers who have the sense that his or her medical condition does indeed constitute a bite in the rear quarters, it may be time to consider preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application under FERS.  And like all such unexpected attacks of the hind quarters from unknown sources, a medical condition can indeed result in the truism of life’s many challenges — of the need to prioritize and focus on your medical condition, and to protect the rear flank just as much as those expected frontal assaults we can otherwise expect and avoid.

Contact a FERS Lawyer who specializes in Federal Medical Retirement Law, and see whether or not you can prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application under FERS before that unknown source from your Agency comes from behind and bites you in the ___ .

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.

 

FERS Disability Retirement Law: Going It Alone

There is precedence in this country for doing that: of High Noon and the one who goes it alone; of the maverick entrepreneur; of the first Pilgrims; and one might argue that most settlers who gave up everything, came to this country and transformed the character of this country have a past of going it alone.  It can still be done.  Is it still wise to do so?

The world has become technocratic; specialization has become the mainstay of almost every discipline, and one rarely encounters a “jack of all trades”, precisely because it is an antiquated notion.  There is too much knowledge, too much information, too many technical details for one person to learn and comprehend in order to be good at more than one thing.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows the Federal or Postal employee to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS may become a necessity.

Should you go it alone?  Likely not — unless you are familiar with the process; understand the specialized area of law; and recognize the pitfalls in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement case.

Contact a FERS Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law and forego the notion, at least in this particular area of law, of going it alone.  For, in the end, there is no great virtue in going it alone, especially when it comes to going up against the Goliath called The U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

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.

 

OPM Disability Retirement for Federal & Postal Employees: Identity

“One day I woke up and looked in the mirror, and realized that I was no longer the person who I thought I was.”

Is this a line from a novel?  Or, perhaps a thought which so many people have considered?  Or even a universal realization which comes as no surprise to anyone.  Who am I?  Who are you?

Do such queries become satisfied by taking out one’s driver’s license and declaring, “Here. This satisfies the question.  This proves it!”  Yet, somehow, we all know that it doesn’t.

People who search for their family “tree”; the uptick of businesses which match one’s DNA to various geographical markers; the rummaging through old photo albums, cellar chests and basement hideaways which might reveal something more than the rat race of paying bills — we all seek relevance in a universe which considers identity to be besides the point.  And when an event further diminishes one’s identity, what then?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers whose identity has been inextricably tied to one’s job, position, career, etc., within the Federal government or Postal Service, filing for FERS Disability Retirement may be a traumatic but necessary next step.  It is always difficult to part ways from one’s identity as a competent working-X; but it may be necessary, precisely because the medical condition no longer allows you to remain attached to that identity.

Contact an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider the future and what identifiable identity you wish to pursue in the years to come.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Unrequited

It is the feeling of that which is not returned; often involving “love”, but it can also encapsulate a sense of appreciation or adulation.  Love itself is a peculiar concept; of the strength of it, whether it must by necessity involve a physical nature; of the relationships involved, and the complications that arise when it is unreturned.  Unrequited love is a state of emptiness; and of anything unrequited — whether of appreciation; of engagement or involvement, leaves a sense of dissatisfaction.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows the Federal or Postal employee to continue in one’s Federal or Postal career, the feeling or sense of being unrequited grows daily.  The greater effort expended to extend one’s career no longer has any corresponding “return”.  It is then time to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement benefits, lest the unrequited effort expended results in a termination because of excessive leave or poor performance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: By Lawful Means

When a person uses that term, we often imply from it that there is an opposite meaning — that of unlawful maneuvers that were accessed in some nefarious ways.

So, when a person queries, “How did X acquire his [or her] wealth?”, and the response is that it was through “lawful means”, the implication is that there was a correlative, opposite manner which could have been a possible alternate basis: That of “unlawful” means.

The “lawful” means, of course, implies that the statutes and case-laws surrounding the matter support the manner and type of activity engaged, and its opposite connotes the convexity of such a meaning.  In another manner of speaking, the concept also applies to the legal avenues available and accessible, but which are often unknown or where some are unaware.

OPM Disability Retirement is not a well-disseminated benefit, but it becomes an important consideration when a Federal or Postal employee is unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job when a medical condition begins to impact a person’s physical or cognitive capabilities.

It is by “lawful means” that a person must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a Federal or Postal employee, during the tenure of Federal employment, finds that he or she can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of his or her position.

Consult with a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to find out what lawful means one must engage in to become eligible for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS.

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

 

Early OPM Retirement for Medical Incapacity: The many tomorrows yet to come

Does hope lie fallow when the basket of tomorrows become numbered too few?  When endless tomorrows lay before one’s imagination, too numerous to count that one need not bother, does that purport to show that one has a great quantity of hope, or merely that youth’s folly allows for a carefree tomorrow where an eternity of tomorrows can never be reduced to a handful beyond a few todays?  Can time and incremental portions of divided moments be quantified in that manner?

That has always been an anomaly for the undersigned writer — the quantification of time, as in the manner that religious beliefs are scoffed at when it comes to the story of genesis.  For, those who hold to the strict construction and literal meaning of the timeline of how old the earth is, count the obscure generational extensions of people who lived in former times, and somehow declare that the world is X-amount of years old.  How one can calculate with precision that which is not explicitly stated is a conundrum in and of itself, leaving aside the issue of whether time can be quantified if the order of the planetary system and our specific galactic orbit had not yet been established.

Evolutionists, of course, contend that the world was clearly created billions of years ago.  To both, the question is:  Tell me the logical difference between the following 2 statements — 1. The world was created a long time ago, and 2. The world was created billions of years ago.  Do humans have the capacity to imagine time beyond the present moment, or perhaps yesterday or a couple of days ago?  What does it mean to say to a person, “A type of human being walked the earth 10 million years ago”?  One can barely remember where one has placed the screwdriver used last week, and yet people want to put some significance upon a belief-system that purports to quantify time.

Ultimately, the question of whether one believes that the earth is a mere 10,000 years old, or billions of years in the making, is not a factual or scientific one; it is, a political condemnation that categorizes a person’s religious belief into a bifurcated system of: Is he/she “scientific” or “religious”?  In the end, time cannot be so easily quantified; rather, it is a basis of hope and an anticipation of a future yet to be resolved.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal and Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal position, time often becomes paralyzed, much like our imagined world of dinosaurs and prehistoric images of those Pleistocene eras and beyond; and as time is unable to be made meaningful except in the here and now — by imagining the many tomorrows yet to come — preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application that lets you project a life beyond the present-day circumstances of pain, medical conditions and deteriorating health, is the singular differentiating way that humans can separate themselves from other species: with hope.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement: Life’s mortgage

We all know well the concept behind it – of borrowing against the object itself, in order to “half-possess”, occupy and enjoy it presently against a future promise that it will be paid over an incremental period of time.  Sort of like life itself, or at least of one’s health.  Borrowed time; life’s mortgage; banking on a better tomorrow; relying upon a promise being kept based upon today’s favorable circumstances over a lengthy period of time well into a future we can never be certain about.

Yet, because the collateral is the object itself – normally, the house that is being mortgaged – the loaning institution actually doesn’t take any gamble at all, even if the value of the collateral plunges below the agreed-upon amount to be paid; one is still obligated, no matter what.

It is sort of like life’s challenge itself – of the promise of a promising life based upon an anticipated health that will last until the day when one is suddenly gone.  But life doesn’t always work that way, just as the mortgage, lien and promise of financial growth doesn’t quite always fold out as planned, like the scrolled blueprint that keeps trying to roll back into an obscured cylinder with each attempt to lay it flat.

Sickness occurs; health deteriorates; the 30-year mortgage that was promised at the onset of the contract signed doesn’t unfold as anticipated, and sometimes a default occurs – like the health that deteriorates and the career that must be ended.

Federal Disability Retirement is a benefit accorded to all Federal and Postal employees under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, based upon the idea that recognizes that while a long-term commitment to a career is reasonably anticipated, there are instances where such a commitment may need to be modified in the event of failing health.  Unlike the bank’s position in a mortgage-relationship as lender-to-borrower, however, it is not quite all that one-sided.  There are options still open.

Thus, because Federal Disability Retirement requires only that a person be unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s position being occupied, the Federal or Postal employee is allowed to go out into the private sector and work at a job somewhat dissimilar (so long as there are “essential elements” which are not identical to the former Federal or Postal position), and make up to 80% of what the former Federal or Postal job pays currently.

For, in the end, life’s mortgage is unlike the home mortgage where the lender holds all of the proverbial cards; at least for the former, the great thing is that the reliance is upon the capacity of man’s ability, and not upon the fine print hidden within the banker’s contract.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: The Moral Code lost in pragmatism

Kant is the best example, and is used often.  Of that arrogance defined by universalization of a query; and if we are willing to apply it in all circumstances, regardless of individual differences that may matter in the context of exceptions recognized, we are to adhere to that which may harm our own interests.  Why is transcendence important?  Why do philosophers insist that any “valid” moral basis possess a metaphysical foundation, transpired in order to justify a cornerstone unsullied by the meanness of common life?  Is the fact of relative significance unacceptable merely because it is subject to change?  Do we not, in daily life, have to adapt in every circumstance, all the time throughout every encounter with experiences, and is this not the very essence of survival?

We bought the posit of Plato and Aristotle – those two old Greek men who provided the foundation of Western Thought – that either (A) a transcendent Form of universalized principle must exist, or (B) that a methodological argumentation must be able to be advanced, in order to “justify” the ethical groundwork telegraphed.  That is how laws, statutes, and societal foundations have evolved – from the implicit assumption that, somehow, principles above and beyond the pragmatic are necessary.  But are they?  In a world that embraces pure materialism and the genetic predisposition of all that exists, without the inconvenience of a creator or grand inquisitor, is not the approach of pragmatism – of that which merely “works” – enough?

That is how the Federal agencies and the U.S. Postal Service operates these days; they care less about any “principles” of fairness in the workplace, or employment “codes” that allegedly overshadow the work ethic applied to employees, and instead, approach it with a view towards the bottom line:  Profitability.  For so many years, the Federal Government was incessantly being compared to the private sector – in terms of output, efficiency and investment-for-returns.  Such comparisons failed to recognize the obvious:  the two general entities served different purposes and needs of society, and forcing them to coalesce and reflect each other merely denigrated the essence of each.

It is not so much the attributable similarities between Plato and Aristotle which form the foundation of such thinking; rather, it is the contrasting approaches between Heraclitus and Parmenides that conform our moments of contemplative underpinnings:  between change and permanence, betwixt relativity and transcendence.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering 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 question often arises as to a conflicting sense between one’s “Moral Code” and the pragmatic need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM.  Often, such a conflict is merely a result of muddled thinking – that, somehow, it is not “right” or “fair” to file for benefits when one is so young, or where one can still be productive, but not at the same level as before.  But that is precisely how the benefit of Federal Disability Retirement is set up – to allow for a retirement from one’s particular kind or type of work, yet presenting an opportunity to remain productive in the private sector, and potentially make up to 80% of what one’s former Federal or Postal position currently pays.

Morality is all well and good for the elitists of our culture, but in the common world of pragmatism, we must embrace that which we are given, like breadcrumbs dusted off at the dinner table of the behemoth called, the United States Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire