Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: The Environment

There is pervasive talk about the importance of containing toxic waste dumps, keeping our air and water clean; of limiting the dumping of animal feces into our oceans, rivers, streams, etc.; and, indeed, there are agencies and departments created by State, Federal and Local governments devoted to enforcing laws designed to protect us and preserve the pristine condition of our “environment”.

But what of toxic environments of another sort?  What of the poison inserted through malicious intent?  Of the constant harassment and hostility used to intimidate, cower and attain submissive unraveling of defiance?  For those, there are designated courts, commissions and laws passed to protect, for purposes of prosecution and pursuit of money damages.  Of course, the results from either and both arenas of judicial relief are difficult to quantify; whether and to what extent pollutants were introduced into the environment, and by whom; or of what level of toxicity caused harm and damage to an individual; the qualitative measure of damages is always difficult to ascertain.

It is, ultimately, only from the personal perspective and experience that one can gauge the damaging results.  For the Federal employee and the U.S. Postal Worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact the capacity to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, there is often a parallel track of pursuing Federal Disability Retirement benefits and concurrently to go after the individuals or organization that discriminated because of the disability acknowledged and recognized.  For the Federal or Postal employee who attempts to secure some semblance of “justice” in the process, the goal of the law has been misdiagnosed:  Justice is not the stated teleological motivation of statutory relief; rather, it is a means to appease.

But at what cost?  To what end?  By whose measure?

Filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, sets a specific goal:  cut one’s losses and move on in one’s life.  By filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the Federal and Postal employee is able to leave the toxic environment which may have even contributed to one’s medical condition or disability, or at the very least, exacerbated it; by fighting it, one must remain within the very environment which one is attempting to escape from.

Like Father Damien of Molokai who helped lepers live with dignity as a separate individual from without, but who later contracted the disease and died as “one of them” within, the Federal or Postal employee who files for Federal Disability Retirement benefits may want to consider the consequences of the dual track of environmental toxicity before taking on a behemoth of mythical proportions, as opposed to preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement in order to exit the poisoning atmosphere.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer: Catharsis

Medically, it is the process of purgation; in experiential moments of truth and recognition, it is the causal impetus to sudden change or need of change.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, there comes a time when recognition of the linkage between the medical condition and the mandate for change conjoins to create a cathartic moment of realization.

We can fight against it; one can ignore, disregard, suppress or otherwise pretend; but whether one’s imagination and creative cognitive dismissal can continue a fantasy of make-believe, the objective world around us remains steadfast in reminding one that Kant’s bifurcation of the world we live in, like cocoons in a protective shell of discontent, cannot alter the reality of the noumenal reality beyond the cognitive constructs of our own making.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is often the first step in recognizing the need for change; and waiting upon a true catharsis will often only result in the self-immolation of destructive purgation — for, by waiting for a crisis-point of that moment where change is necessary, the shock of coalescence where circumstances, the medical condition, and the sudden realization of the true state of affairs come to the fore, may be greater than was ever necessary.

Waiting by ignoring is never a wise decision; procrastination of the inevitable is merely an artificial extension of the coming moment of realization; and in the end, disregarding that which everyone else has implicitly recognized, will only allow for the fate of cathartic gods to send down that bolt of lightening when one least expects it.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Resignation

Resignation is an act which is resisted, for various and complex reasons.

The strength of holding onto something; the sense that such an act would be a culmination of, and admission to, a declaration of defeat; it is often and stubbornly believed that to resist the finality of the act promulgates a validation of remaining strength to survive.

For Federal and Postal employees contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the decision not to resign allows for greater options to remain open:  the tolling of the Statute of Limitations (Federal and Postal employees have up until 1 year from the date of separation from Federal Service to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits) will not be triggered; there is the belief that, if a Federal Disability Retirement application is filed, but is denied at all stages, the Federal or Postal employee may have the opportunity to continue to work at the Federal or Postal job; a sense that OPM will scrutinize a Federal Disability Retirement application submitted by one who has chosen to resign, in a different and more rigorous light; and multiple similar reasonings employed.

But whether for financial considerations (accessing one’s TSP), personal reasons (moving to a different location to be with family, etc.), or psychological decisions (the action itself may allow for some sense of finality and culmination of relief), sometimes it may be necessary to contemplate the act of resignation.

How such a resignation should be worded may play somewhat of a relevant part, and should be reflected upon before any final submission.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: To Resign, or Not

The question of whether a Federal or Postal employee should (or should not) resign from the job is one which cannot be answered in a vacuum.  Various considerations should be taken into account, but generally speaking, the rule of thumb which the undersigned writer poses in any circumstance is:  What is the compelling reason to do so, such that by resigning, one triggers the Statute of Limitations on filing for Federal Disability Retirement?

Certainly, there are dire circumstances which may necessitate a resignation: being able to access TSP funds because one cannot work because of one’s medical conditions, and one has no other means of support during the process; a pending non-medical adverse action which cannot reasonably be argued against, which may collaterally impact a Federal Disability Retirement application, with a settlement choice to resign for “medical reasons”; and some similar factual scenarios which may indeed warrant and dictate a resignation.

On the other hand, by remaining on the rolls of the Federal sector job, there are multiple advantages which may unfold for the future, including the assertion of the Bruner Presumption when the Federal Agency realizes that the Federal Disability Retirement package clearly shows an inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job and proceeds to remove the Federal or Postal worker based upon the medical inability to perform; a lack of triggering the Statute of Limitations, thereby extending the timeframe for multiple future attempts in filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits; and other issues which need to be considered.

Resignation is an event of certainty, with no reversal; and in all such certainties, it should be done only if compelled by circumstances, facts and considered thoughtfulness.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Resignation Argument

Sometimes, in preparing to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management under FERS or CSRS, one is either forced to resign or, because of financial or other reasons, it is the best course of action to take.  

In any resignation, one should submit a resignation letter which clearly and concisely identifies the reason for one’s resignation:  Medical inability to perform one’s job.  While such resignation, for the reasons stated, may not invoke what is termed the “Bruner Presumption“, it nevertheless lays the groundwork for arguing that one is entitled to the Bruner Presumption.  

Now, understand that such an argument may fly completely over the heads of anyone and everyone at the Office of Personnel Management.  However, if the case is denied both at the Initial Stage of the Process, and at the Reconsideration Stage of the Process at the Office of Personnel Management, then it must be filed as an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.  There, with an Administrative Judge reviewing the record, while it may still end up that one is not entitled (technically) to the Bruner Presumption, sometimes the strength of an argument in favor of a legal precedent is almost as strong as obtaining the substantive elements of the legal precedent.  

Indeed, if all of the corollary issues surrounding the stated resignation for medical reasons are consistent — the medical documentation; using FMLA; being on OWCP for part of the time, or otherwise only able to work part of the time; etc. — then the fact that one was forced to resign based upon one’s medical inability to perform one’s job, is a consistency worth documenting and arguing thus:  While it is true that one was not removed for one’s medical inability to perform the job, it is “as if” one was removed, because there was really no other choice available.  Sometimes, it is the argument itself which provides the foundation for persuasion, and not the technical application of a legal device.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Burning Bridges and Walking Away

When a Federal or Postal worker suffers from a medical condition — often, silently, and without complaint — and such medical condition(s) impacts one’s ability to perform the essential elements of one’s job, there is often a tendency to engage in desperate acts, such as resigning, walking away from the job, etc. 

After so much time has vested, and has been invested, by the Federal or Postal employee in the pursuit of a Federal or Postal career; and after so much stress, anxiety, sometimes intolerable working conditions are endured; or, having expended so much loyalty and exerted so much effort in doing an excellent job for one’s agency, it is a self-contradiction to simply walk away from the Agency without filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, especially when such laws governing Federal Disability Retirement were set up precisely for the type of Federal or Postal worker who has performed well, but has come to a point in his or her career where a medical condition has impacted one’s ability to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job. 

Perspectives are often “out of balance” when one suffers from a medical condition.  Before taking steps of “burning bridges” and resigning, it is best to consult an attorney and see what the possibilities are for preparing, formulating, and successfully filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire