Federal Employee Disability Information: The shaken confidence

Tree limbs can be shaken; hands can shake, evidencing some agreement or initial salutation of a wordless sort, or even accompanied by some utterances; and the earth can shake as the subterranean tectonic shifts invisible and otherwise unnoticed, which then can result in tsunamis and other natural disasters.

The shaken confidence can take many forms; and the forms themselves cannot so easily be identified.  It presumes, first of all, that there was “confidence” to begin with, lest that which is shaken could not possibly have occurred unless it preexisted the loss of it.  Yet, too often, the evidence of its very existence is merely the lack of any contrary characteristic — i.e., a negation that fails to manifest existence and thus cannot actually be proven.  Of a person who walks about without any noticeable trace of lack — do we say of him or her, “He has confidence’?  Or is it just the one who has an overabundance of it, who struts around like a proud peacock or a rooster who takes no guff of whom we attribute “overconfidence’?

In normal discourse we just assume that, unless there are indications to the contrary, everyone who stands and walks amidst and among us possess some level of “confidence” or, in more particularized form, of “self-confidence”.  What are the events or issues that “shake” it, and what can an attribution of such an event mean?  Perhaps it is triggered by some tragic source — a trauma of a very personal nature, of death or an accident, perhaps; or can it be by mere utterance of words, of a berating boss or an insensitive spouse?  Or, how about a realization that one’s presumed immortality is simply not so?

None of us believe in immortality — at least, not in the sense that we will live forever walking about this earth.  Yet, until an event “reminds” us of our mortality, we take it for granted that life goes on as the day before, and the day before that; and so the concept of immortality resides by avoidance or ignorance, until something “reminds” us that, indeed, mortality is the nature of life, and flesh is by each instance and in incremental subtlety progressively deteriorating within the microscopic cells of slow degeneration.  And of a medical condition — can it be the source of the shaken confidence?

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 essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job — the shaken confidence resulting from the progressively deteriorating medical condition is just as real as the earth that trembles and groans from tectonic shifts that moves and crumbles the structural integrity of high engineering feats.

Federal Disability Retirement is often not a choice made in confidence, but from a lack thereof; for, a medical condition cannot be viewed within a vacuum of a mere diagnosis that can be surgically extracted; rather, a medical condition is a sequence of aggregated tragedies — of the medical condition itself; the symptoms which result; the impact upon one’s personal and professional life; of the effect upon family and friends; of the triggers upon one’s psyche as well as the physical pain and mental anguish experienced.

In short, the shaken confidence of the one who used to walk about the earth as if you owned it, and preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is simply the first step in regaining that “shaken confidence” that was once a day before in a time now long forgotten presumed to have always been there.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation for OPM Disability Retirement Claims: ‘To’ and ‘For’

What would be the difference if, in the title of Willa Cather’s novel, “Death Comes for the Archbishop”, she had instead chosen to use the word “to” in replacement of “for”?  Would empires have fallen, world wars have been averted or earthquakes and other natural disasters have been delayed?

Likely, not; but would the countless minds that have encountered the novel, enjoyed its beautiful prose and admired its humanity and warmth in the telling of a tale of a time long past and a period now gone — would anyone have even noticed?  Is there a difference with a distinction: “Death Comes for the Archbishop” as opposed to “Death Comes to the Archbishop”?

Some might dismissively declare, “In any event, the Archbishop died, didn’t he?”  The subtlety of distinction — should it even be brought up?  Would that the title was of the latter instead of the former — would anyone have even noticed?  Is there a grammatical point of difference; is one “more” correct than the other?

Certainly, the “sense” that is employed exists — where, the “to” has a much more objective and distant, impersonal “feel” to it, whereas the “for” personalizes it, gives it warmth, almost as if “death” is a person as opposed to an event, and the “for” makes it a personal possessive as opposed to the “to” that connotes an arms-length relationship between the object and subject.

Are the prepositions interchangeable?  If a person is stricken with grief over a tragedy and a close friend arrives to provide comfort and says, “I came for you”, it would be a statement that would be considered heart-warming.  If, under the same circumstances, the person instead declared, “I came to you” — would we, again, mark the difference or even notice?  It is, certainly, a statement of objective fact — the person objectively traveled and arrived at destination Point B from origination Point A.

Again, the subtle distinction — the “for” connotes a greater personal warmth as opposed to a simple statement of fact.  It is, in the end, the subtle differences that sometimes makes the entirety of a distinction that makes the difference.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the distinction between “to” and “for” is often the difference between living a life worthwhile and one that remains cold and impervious.

Human beings are often careless in their personal relationships; and the test of such caring or uncaring attitudes will often surface when a person is going through a trial or tragedy, and preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the complex and impersonal administrative process of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, will often test the workplace relationships because of the self-interested motives that exist with agencies and the Postal Service.

Some coworkers, supervisors and others will distance themselves immediately, and they will remain in the category of the “to” people; while other coworkers, managers, supervisors, etc., will surprisingly be there “for” you.  Willa Cather chose the preposition “for” over the “to” because she was an excellent author, and it is the excellence of a human being that is revealed in the subtle differences we often overlook.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Law: Argumentation

What makes for a “good” argument?  Is it when voices are raised, or can a quietude of mere whispers that nevertheless persuades become the greater efficacy for effectiveness?  Does it matter “who” the person arguing is, as opposed the position taken, the logical connections made and the avoidance of fallacies left unstated?

Take the following hypothetical: A debate challenge is set between a champion debater, known throughout the country as a persuasive arbiter of words, phrases and posited language games, who encompasses the paradigm of the greater user of fallacies, linguistic tricks and ad hominem twists of convoluted word-play that confuse, obfuscate and confound – and a young teenager who is a son of a minister of whom everyone agrees is an upstanding citizen of the county, whose moral positions on matters reflects a character throughout a lifetime of “living what he preaches” (yes, yes, the cynic would say that that type of person is the one who, in his private life is likely the meanest SOB you ever knew, but let us set aside that ugly fact for the sake of this hypothetical).

The issue to be debated is, “Whether X is morally wrong” – you can fill in the blank represented by the X.  The champion debater stands before the stage and, for the next hour, wows everyone with his command of the logical innuendoes, the implied thrusts of linguistic balm, and rides through the treacherous seas of persuasive intercourse with such convincing force that people in the audience (assuming that there is even an audience for such an event, as this is no longer in some Podunk county in Illinois where the Lincoln-Douglas debates were held throughout multiple congressional districts, and of course, that was, in those days, a form of “entertainment” that no longer attracts) sat with trance-like looks of agreement, somewhat like modern-day zombies who have been brainwashed.

At the end of his discourse, everyone in unison shouted out, “We agree!” – even before the teenager had a chance to make his point and argue his side.  But, fairness being the arbiter of everything in life for modernity, the teenager stood up and was given a chance.  At stake is a 10 million dollar prize.  The nervous young lad steps before the audience and states simply, “Because my daddy says so!” The audience considers, nods in agreement, and makes their decision as to who “won” the debate.

Query: Does it matter who makes the argument, or is it the substance of the words delineated that make for a valid persuasion?  Can an argument about moral behavior be made just as effectively by a “good” person as opposed to a convicted felon?  If a person wants to argue that “stealing is bad”, does it make a difference whether the person giving such a lecture is a policeman in uniform, or a prison inmate spending time for grand larceny?

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, always remember that there is a conceptual distinction with a real difference, between “having a medical condition” and “proving that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job”.  To “have a medical condition” is tantamount to the teenager who says that X is wrong “because my daddy says so”.  To prove one’s Federal Disability Retirement application before OPM is akin to the champion debater who must argue, prove and persuade.

Oh, and by the way – as to who “won” the debate in the hypothetical above – well, that is left to the imagination of the reader.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Judgment

How does it develop?  Does youth necessarily, by definition, undermine the existence of it, and if so, why does such a “rule” become obviated by the old fool who rests his arms (and other elements of the anatomy) upon the shoulders of one who could be one’s grandchild, only not by birth?

Is life not linear, but circular, and thus do we all revert back to childish ways when old age and decrepit bodies reveal the sanctity of our fragile mortality?  When Darwinism prevailed upon the civilization of discontent, did we not recognize that ultimate reductionism to pure materialism would trickle down into a singular desire to discover the fountain of youth?

It is involved in both the process as well as the conclusion; to have good judgment is to necessarily engage in a careful weighing of all information, consider opinions and analyze relevant data, dividing significance from irrelevancies.  To make a judgment, or arrive at one, does not necessarily involve the former; one can have good judgment, yet make a bad one; but, then, retrospective evaluations would define the latter in light of the former, and vice versa.  How can quality of judgment mature without direct and consequential experience?

If a young driver, on the first day after obtaining a license, comes upon a primary roadway accessible from a side road, where cars are traveling at the maximum speed limit in both directions, including trucks and commuters rushing to meet deadlines and timelines; where, the new driver must traverse across one lane in order to make a left turn – what experience does he have to judge distance, timing, suppression of fear and capacity for quickness of movement?

Or, in either love or war, what is the foundation in which to act, or recognize the difference between hormonal ravages and meeting the lifeline of a soul mate destined for longevity; and in the trenches of the latter, to fire at the moving target that may not be a threat, but a child needing to rush to the facilities in the far-off village where rumors of enemies lurk?

What constitutes the finality of conclusions as to who possesses “good” judgment, as opposed to “bad”?  Wisdom, experience, analytical capacity and evaluative abilities – which came first, the chicken or the egg?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to make a judgment on one’s career, future, and decisions about timing, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is an area where judgment becomes crucial.  There are many legal pitfalls and obstacles throughout the administrative process, and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is a behemoth of an agency that can try one’s patience and defeat one’s purposive goals.

Lack of judgment is no crime, and not even a sin; but where such lack leads one to blindly enter into the arena of land mines, failing to consider legal representation is tantamount to the young driver who, in frustration of waiting at the busy intersection, closes his eyes and puts his foot on the gas pedal, hoping for a foolish act to defy the gods of fate, when all that was needed was for judgment to seek the advice and counsel of one wiser from years and experience.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement: Artistic precision and the caravan of words

The two words in the initial linguistic compound are rarely combined; for, as the former denotes a free-wheeling flow of undisciplined handiwork, it resists against the latter for its constraining methodology of instrumental pragmatism.  Thus, an “artist” by definition belies the very definition of precision, and “precision” connotes too rational an approach within the contextual themes of scientism and material fortitude.

Are they oxymorons?  Not quite.  Inconsistent in an aggregation of conceptual constructs?  Perhaps, to a degree of some incommensurability.  Nevertheless, as even opposites can still attract, and manage to discover ways to synchronize, so the free-flowing phenomenology of creativity inferred by an artistic hand, can with the guiding principles of methodological precision, garner a coordination of approaching beauty by analogy and pastoral effect by metaphor.

With that, we approach the latter half of the title — of a “caravan of words“.  Some would picture in the mind’s eye of a distant past, where antiquity and modernity clash in a final battle of lost yearnings; of a line of camels against the sunset of a desert’s sky, when languages uttered were foreign and exciting in their romantic interludes.  Nowadays, in a world gone mad, no one cares a twit about such scenes except to fear the violence and mayhem which is represented by a technological world having replaced the transport of goods by beasts of burdens.

It is, however, the addendum of “words”, attached to the concept of a caravan, which qualifies for significance and meaning.  For, by conveyance through a manner lost now in the fading antiquity of time, memories and forgotten worlds, we once communicated through a caravan of words, but now simply rush upon a computer key or a smartphone app.

We thus come to the ending chorus, the finale, the drumbeat of closure:  True communication can only occur through a series of burdensome approaches in transporting language into an effective word picture, utilizing both the imagination of artistry and the deliberations of scientific precision.

This should be kept in mind when a Federal or Postal employee who is preparing the Statement of Disability on SF 3112A, that the narrative to be told in response to questions asked, should encompass all of the elements discussed:  unrestrained by the questions themselves, yet precise in formulating the argument; conveyed not by mere convenience of transport, but carefully packed upon the backs of reliable caravans.

Words mean something, and when the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker sits down to prepare an effective Statement of Disability on Standard Form 3112A in order to formulate a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it is important to engage in the artistic precision of a caravan of words, lest the means for conveyance of one’s narrative be delayed by an obstacle of technological obfuscation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Experience and Federal Disability Retirement Benefits

The vicious circularity of having or not having “experience” is comprised of the following: If too much weight is placed upon it and one is passed over because of its lack, then one will never be able to attain the experience needed in order to qualify; in order to attain experience, one must be given the opportunity to grow by trial and error; but such trial and error only reveals the lack thereof.

For most endeavors, the experience of undergoing X is merely a singular event, and one need not have repetitive encounters in order to aggregate a composite of a series of such events in order to become “better” at it.  For FERS and CSRS employees, whether a Federal employee or a U.S. Postal worker, the experience of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is normally just a singular lifetime event.

The experience itself may well be a difficult one; and while no prior experience is required in order to prepare, formulate and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, it is often a good idea to obtain the counsel and advice of someone with experience, in order to make the process a less-than-devastating experience.

Experience matters; experiencing an administrative process without the guidance of experience makes that experience all the more a difficult experience. It is in these conundrums of life that we find the true puzzlement of the tumultuous linear-ness of experiential phenomena, and for Federal and Postal employees filing for the difficult benefit of an OPM Medical retirement, such mysteries are made all the greater when one is left in the dark about the secret matters which boil in the cauldron of a witch’s brew.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire