The 2nd OPM and 3rd MSPB Stages: The True Reconsideration

Filing for a FERS Disability Retirement application is a long, arduous, and complicated bureaucratic process.  Preferably, one would like to obviously be approved at the First (INITIAL) Stage of the Process.  But these days as the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is not easily inclined to approve a case at the first stage, it is the Second (Reconsideration Stage) which is a crucial and important event in the process.

At the Reconsideration Stage, 2 important factors are presented:  First, you have the chance to correct any alleged deficiencies which OPM points out, and; Second, and just as importantly, you can begin to prepare the way for an MSPB Judge to see the strength and coherence of your medical case.  For, if OPM denies you FERS Disability Retirement benefits a second time, it will then have to be appealed to the Third Stage of the process — an appeal to the U.S Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

But as most opportunities are presented, the best way to approach this 2nd OPM Stage is to see it as a dual-purpose response:  First as a response to OPM’s Denial, and concurrently, as a legal argument to the potential MSPB Judge.

Furthermore, what OPM never tells FERS applicants is that a further “reconsideration” — a re-reconsideration — will occur if OPM denies the case a second time and an appeal is filed to the MSPB.

This is because the OPM Legal Specialist who will represent OPM at the MSPB will automatically review the case in its entirety, and re-reconsider it anew from an entirely different perspective – that from a legally sufficient perspective — in the same way, that the MSPB Judge will view it.

This is because the MSPB is a legal forum and not a bureaucratic forum —which brings us back o the “second” point in responding to an OPM Denial at the Reconsideration Stage — not only to correct any alleged deficiencies pointed out by the Office of Personnel Management, but moreover, to make persuasive legal arguments which point to the legally sufficient cogency of your application.

Thus, the Reconsideration Response should always include a Responsive legal memorandum arguing the applicable case law in preemptively preparing for the MSPB.  This not only prepares the way for arguing the merits of your case with the MSPB Administrative Judge but also gives a warning to OPM that your case will be legally invincible if and when it is appealed to the MSPB.

The best approach is to do things well from the very beginning, but even if your disability claim was already denied at the First Stage, for more reasons now, you need to contact a FERS Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law and prepare your disability case for the first appeal and reconsideration, but who also will assist you with the preparation of the “true reconsideration” stage — the re-review at the MSPB.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Specialized attorney exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their FERS Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: The Noise of Apparent Relevance

Noise is all around us.  The question too often unasked, is: Is the noise relevant, or of mere apparent relevance?

A newborn lacks the capacity to filter out noises.  The din of the world around hammers the fresh ears, and the cacophony is sometimes overwhelming.  Survival is often at the heart of being able to discern and decipher; to compartmentalize and differentiate; for, if you are lost in thought and a car warns with a loud honking, it is often a noise of relevance which should be heeded.

Radio and television news cycles depend upon making you believe that the next “breaking news” is of relevance; and advertisements which seem funny or tell an interesting story are meant to appear relevant, only to try and sell you a service or commodity which you neither need nor asked for.

We all want to be relevant.  Everyone else, in turn, wants to assert their relevance.  There is a need in the human heart to become, and then to remain, relevant in a world full of irrelevance.  Work and career often define what “relevance” even means, and for Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical condition, there is often a hollow, foreboding feeling that you are, or are becoming, irrelevant because you can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of your job.

Federal Disability Retirement is a benefit which allows you to retire from the Federal government and then move on into the private sector in order to become productive — and relevant — in another way.  Distinguish between the noise of apparent relevance and the falsehood of alleged irrelevance, and consult with a Retirement Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, thereby putting an earplug into the noise of apparent relevance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
OPM Disability Attorney

 

FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Vital Signs

We tend to take them for granted; yet, when an emergency arises, they are the first indicators we search for in determining whether and to what extent the concerns are justified or not.

Vital signs — whether of pulse, heartbeat, breathing or consciousness — are like left and right turn indicators that forewarn of an impending action, and when they weaken or disappear altogether, it becomes an event with traumatic consequences.  For the most part, vital signs are overlooked and are forgotten about.  We do not go through a normal day worrying about our pulse, or our heartbeat, leaving aside our consciousness; for, in the act of taking such things for granted, we assume that our capacity to live, work, eat and play in themselves are signs of conscious intent, and therefore can be ignored.

Vital signs are vital only in the instance of an emergency, when the question itself emerges as to whether that which we presume to be the case no longer is, or is doubtful as to its existence.  But life is more than the aggregate measure of vital signs; its quality must be measured by the compendium of circumstances, what we do, how we see ourselves and what hopes for the future are collected and maintained.  Vital signs are merely those “basics” that are taken for granted; but beyond, there is the question of one’s quality of life.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition impacts upon one’s quality of life precisely because work is a constant struggle, one’s health is a persistent problem and where one’s personal life is overwhelmed with fatigue, pain and misery, consideration must be given to file for Federal Disability Retirement.

In the end, life is more than checking to see if those vital signs exist; in fact, it is vital to life to have a certain quality of life, and that is what Federal Employee Disability Retirement is all about.

Consult with an experienced attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law to see whether you may qualify for a benefit which is intended to return the vital signs back to a state of presumed existence.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
OPM Medical Disability Retirement Attorney

 

OPM Disability Retirement Claims: Hanging on a contingency

The metaphorical image representing such a phrase allows one to pause and reflect: the dichotomy between the physical world and the conceptual one — of a person “hanging”, as from a cliff, with his fingers turning white from gripping the tenuous life-line of a flimsy branch, a loose boulder or an outstretched hand of another; and of the technical term that possesses meaningful discourse only in a purely theoretical universe of conceptual constructs — denoting the idea of a future event or circumstance that cannot be relied upon with certainty, but may trigger a series of consequential future contingencies or further occurrences, etc.

Thus does the physical and the conceptual come together in an aggregation of a compound conceptual construct that may connote thus: You are in a tenuous situation where your physical well-being is dependent upon a future uncertainty that may result in events that may or may not yet happen.

Such a conditional circumstance is often how the Federal or Postal employee feels, who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition may result in the necessity 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.  For, it is indeed the “physical” part of the entire event — the medical condition itself — which makes one feel “as if” one is dangling from the edge of a cliff.

And it is the “contingency” — the uncertain triggering mechanism, such as the anticipated adverse reaction of the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service; the tenuous reliance upon a doctor’s diagnosis and treatment; the growing inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties — that makes the medical condition all the more magnified in its exponentially-exacerbated conditions of anticipated calamities.

Life is often an unfortunate series of having to hang on to a contingency, but when a medical condition enters into the fray, it makes it doubly more tenuous, and preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is at least a concrete step that allows one to grip the reality of one’s situation, and perhaps leave all future contingencies, tenuously anticipated, aside.

Sincerely,

Robert R.McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement from Federal Service: By what right?

It is a question often posed in the dead of night by those who would undermine an assertion based upon an instinctive sense of fairness, but perhaps not able to be articulated in comprehensible form.  By what right do you enter these premises?  By what right do you express that opinion?  By what right do you think you can do that?

It is, as with many questions, one that has a sadly contextual background of a negative past – for, whenever a person, a populace or a segment of a greater society begins to assert a “right”, it was generally preceded by a breakdown of community and caring.  For example: A violation of another’s property where a fence has not yet been placed should be resolved by two neighbors discussing the infraction or infringement without resorting to a higher authority.  If that “neighborliness” cannot resolve the conflict, then a fence may be built and the right to build such a fence can be asserted by the fence-building-neighbor as a “right” of property ownership.  No one would, or could, dispute such a right to do so, but the mere fact that a fence had to be built is evidence of a preceding breakdown of the unspoken rules of a community, where resolution of a conflict could not be accomplished by discussing, caring, understanding and compromising for the sake of a community’s greater good, but instead results in a declarative reference to one’s “right” to do X, Y or Z.

Rights should have the insipid connotation of negativity to the extent that asserting them is something of a last resort and the last bastion of scoundrels and suspicious individuals seen in an unfavorable communal light; but in modernity, shouting out one’s “right” to do this or that, or standing on a soapbox and pontificating about how we (why does everyone assume that he or she has a “right” to speak on behalf of that undefined “we” in the first place?) have every “right” to be here, do this or that or be “in your face” because of the proverbial “catch-all” – the “Bill of Rights”.  By what right?

For Federal and Postal employees who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it may well be that asserting one’s right to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits was preceded by a context of negativity – of the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal facility failing to, refusing to, or otherwise not showing effort for, accommodating one’s medical condition, illness or disability, and that is when the assertion of declaring one’s “right” to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits becomes the inviolable pathway to an exit out of an untenable workplace situation.

To that extent, preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is somewhat akin to building that “fence” between your property and the next-door neighbor’s, whose dog keeps coming into your yard, digging up the freshly-planted bushes and vegetables, pooping all over the place and attacking your cat, and cares not a twit to try and resolve the issue; that, in many ways, is the Federal agency or the Postal facility you work for.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Chasm Between the “Process” and the End-Product

One is often forewarned that, if you want to continue retaining certain foods and delectable delights of culinary desires, you should refrain from taking a tour of the manner, means and methodology of manufacturing the medium of modality.

The “process” of attaining a final product is, in many instances, quite different from the “end product” displayed and delivered for public viewing.  The latter constitutes all of the hard work, effort and refinements contained beneath and within the invisible undercoating which comprises the historical context of unspoken deeds; while the former is comprised of the aggregate of that which has been censored for public viewing.

In law, one reads about the final outcome — the verdict; the monetary sum awarded; the opinion of the Court; the statement of triumph by the prosecutor, defense attorney or the plaintiff’s advocate.  The process to get there — the preparation, the missteps, the unexpected statement by a witness previously vetted and sifted through multiple and complex layers of questioning and examination; these constitute the ugly foray of felonious intent.

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 issue is rarely the “end-product” (Federal Disability Retirement benefits) — although, because of the reduction in income/annuity, and the change of circumstances from “employed” to “retired” constituting a radical change in life and perspective, that, too, can be a scary thought — but rather, the “process” of getting there.

But a traditional “cost/benefits” analysis normally results in affirmatively comprehending the singular issue of importance, significance and relevance in the necessity of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from OPM:  The medical condition itself is the driving force, and the mandate of compelling action.

In the end, the ugliness of the process itself must be ignored:  the admission to the agency, coworkers, supervisors, managers, etc., of the proverbial throwing in the towel or raising of the white flag; the ostracizing response by the agency (but isn’t that just a confirmation and affirmation of what has been going on for the past year or so, anyway?); the long wait; the encounter with the bureaucratic process (but again, isn’t that something one has already “been there, done that” by virtue of working for the Federal Government or the U.S. Postal Service these many years, anyway?).

The “process” of getting from Point A to Point B is a long and hard one, and no one can deny that the journey itself is but an unpleasant pathway of necessity; but that is why we have pithy proverbs to provide portentous pretentiousness:  There is “light at the end of the tunnel“; “Another day, another dollar”; “Youth is wasted on the young”; and the one most relevant as the Federal and Postal worker awaiting a decision from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management:  “Patience is a virtue“.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire