OPM Medical Retirement: The Long, Hard Slog

Much of life can be characterized as such, and those unwilling to endure the concept are either left behind or end in interminable voids of unsolvable problems.  The slog itself is long, hard and uninteresting — one of making it through the day, of life activities, lacking meaning or substance, often unexciting and barely tolerable.

Especially in this country, where we have lost any sense of community, and we barely even know our neighbors, leaving aside our own family.  Life becomes a long, hard slog when relationships break down and we come to believe that “meaning” is attached to objects and possessions, or in having a “cause” to believe in.

Like Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the hill only to see it roll back down the other side, we wonder perpetually and question daily the meaning of it all.

We have abandoned the idea of  “the true, the beautiful, and the good” — the triadic concept which can be traced back to Plato paralleling the fields of knowledge, art, and morality, essentially encompassing the Western Philosophical tradition which provided the foundation of our educational system.

However, since we no longer believe in truth, have denigrated art, and abandoned morality, we are left with an anarchy of thoughtless vacuity where we are each isolated by the grandness of our own opinions.  Everywhere the seams of civilization appear to be unraveling, and we are left alone with the hard and long slog.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal employees who suffer from a chronic illness or injury which further complicates and exacerbates the long hard slog, it must be understood that the process of attempting to be approved for FERS Disability Retirement benefits itself is a long bureaucratic slog itself — a reflective microcosm of the greater societal long slog, and it must be viewed as such if you are to survive the battles ahead.

In preparing for that long and hard slog, you may want to contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and consider what it will take to prepare of the long administrative slog of trying to win the battle against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS laws.

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 from OPM: Piling On

There is an unspoken ethos in sports and other disciplines — of being charged with “unsportsmanlike conduct” if you engage in the activity of “piling on”.

If a game has already been decided but you push forth anyway to go for the touchdown followed by a 2-point conversion, you are likely guilty of the offense.  If you have already made your point and the intended target has clearly been shown to be wrong, and yet you persist in hammering out every conceivable other criticism to lay upon the individual, you are likely “piling on”.

If, in defeating a proposal or pointing to the inadequacy of some submission, you go beyond the first 3 points of a critical rebuttal — all valid and determined to be correct — but then go on with a red marker and circle every comma missed or adjective overused, it is likely that you are committing the sin of it.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, a Denial from OPM will likely find the feature of “piling on”.

OPM is notorious for engaging in this activity; it is another way of saying, “Why did you even file?  You idiot!  You never stood a chance!”  Now, of course, OPM doesn’t put it in such an inartful manner; instead, it will be couched in lengthy “discussions” by large chunks of extrapolated statements from your medical file, and then concluding that you do not meet the “legal criteria” under Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Don’t be fooled.  It is no different than going for that 2-point conversion when the team is up by 50 points and there is only 4 seconds left on the clock.

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 under FERS: The Advocate

It is the ability to see things that you may not; of knowing the laws that apply, the arguments which will work, the evidence to be submitted; these, and many more, make “the advocate” worth the price to be paid.  Certainly, expenses have to be considered, but as the old adage goes, “You get what you pay for”, and you need to be careful in considering what is included.

When you call the office which you are considering as your “advocate”, does someone call you back fairly soon after leaving a voicemail?  Do you get to speak to an actual lawyer — the one who should be working on your case, or do you — instead — only speak to a paralegal or someone who claims the title of, “Disability Specialist”?

What, in fact, is a “Disability Specialist”?  If not a lawyer, then no amount of “specialty” in the field makes a bit of difference.  Who will be working on your case?  Will your case be sloughed off to some clerk or “legal specialist”, or will you actually be getting what you think you are paying for — an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from OPM, contact Robert R. McGill, Attorney at Law, and be assured that he himself, and not someone else, will be working on your case.  He will, indeed, be “The Advocate” who will fight on your behalf.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Having something to say

There are people who speak volumes in voluminous volubility, but of thinness of content and lacking of much substance.  Then, there is that quiet person in the corner, perhaps distracted by someone’s glancing comment or lost in his own thoughts who, when asked about a topic of general interest to all in a group, articulates in a single sentence what others have attempted to encapsulate in a paragraph, a page, or perhaps a Dickensian novel.

Having something to say is the linguistic equivalent of wanting to be noticed, needing to be relevant and asking to be loved.  The capitalistic rule of supply-and-demand works within other and foreign contexts, as well — that when the supply of articulation exceeds the demand sought, the diminishment of value in words is proportional to the content of relevance.

Of course, the general truism which becomes reduced to an inane thought is that we “all have something to say” — that is to say, each one of us can make a contribution to the general pool of solutions, ideas, thoughts, etc.  But if everyone can be everything to everybody, then nothing comes from nothing where something is devalued because everything is nothing — in other words, the diminishment of value because supply exceeds so much of a lesser demand.

There are times, of course, when — whether we have something to say or not — it becomes necessary to express something; to express it well; and to express it with clarity and conciseness of thought.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have come to a point where filing for Federal Disability Retirement has become a necessity, “Having something to say” becomes important because of the requirement of filing SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability as part of the FERS Disability Retirement packet.  The questions posed on SF 3112A appear simple; but do not mistake “simple” for “simplicity” — for, within the content of the simple are a jumble of complexities that are interconnected with legal precedents and court rulings.

Language is a funny animal; it requires thought beyond the pool of language one is familiar with, and it is the unfamiliar which can become the cliff over which one can fall, and to prevent the calamities which one may not be aware of, it is best to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to make sure that when you have something to say, it is posited with knowledge and legal counsel.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Legal Representation: Simplicity

There is certainly something to be said about it.  But, then, by adding to the very word itself, there is always a danger of complicating the very concept implied from the singular word that stands alone as a paradigm of striving, a goal to attain, an end to achieve.

“Simplicity” is a state of being, a characteristic of existence and the pinnacle of wishes in dreams fantasized.  Yet, nowhere in the historical archives of any fairytales of yore, in whatever form and differences of versions presented — you know, the one that involves a genie who allows for 3 wishes to be granted to the lucky one — do you find the individual request: Simplicity.

No, instead, it is the complex which is always wished for: More wealth; the key to the universe; eternal youth; to be the “greatest X”; or any other of a number of states of being or accumulation of stuff that will only further complicate one’s life.  Never, ever, does one wish for: Simplicity.  Yes, that is what everyone all over the world always claims to be striving for, while at the same time doing everything in order to undermine it.  Does one think that acquiring greater wealth, being granted eternal immortality or an extended childhood of innocence will result in the attainment of simplicity?

And of the world that promises anything but delivers short on everything, the empty palms begin to echo hollow: This new technological gadget X will be a greater time-saver and will “simplify” your life; and that shortcut invention Y will allow you to “spend more time doing the things you want to do”…  If we could bottle up all of the minutes promised to have been saved for every gadget offered, we should all be living the life of simplicity in a stress-free universe.

What becomes apparent is that simplicity is a malleable concept that cannot so easily be defined, and is bundled up with a conundrum of complexities depending upon one’s perspective and viewpoint.  For example, for the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from a medical condition and who needs to file a Federal Disability Retirement application — is the process of presenting proof to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management a matter of administrative simplicity such that completing SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, can be accomplished without proper legal guidance?

The form itself looks simple enough; the questions posed, an artwork of simplicity; and the space in the boxes provide, a simple couple of inches of allowances; so how can such simplicity present a complexity of legal entanglements?

Until, of course, one realizes that simplicity is often the trap for the unweary: look upon that pinnacle of simplicity wrapped in the morning sunlight where the dew forms upon a spider’s web — ah, such simplicity in nature, awaiting the unweary to be trapped and irreversibly enmeshed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Retirement for Mental or Physical Incapacity: Perilous times

It can refer to the particular or the general, interchangeably almost without thought.  To refer to these “perilous times” is to ascribe to a particular period, an epoch or an era, an acknowledgment that the surrounding days and months are unique from all other timeframes of perceived dangers and tumultuous upheavals.  Or, it can be quite personal — where one describes specific circumstances concerning one’s own life, one’s situation and the peculiarities of a life otherwise undisturbed by circumstances that stand out.

There is that expansive “we” form that can distinguish between the particular and the general, as in, “We live in perilous times.”  Or, one can personalize it and declare to a friend in confidence, “I live in a state of peril” or “My life reflects these perilous times.”  The latter, of course, implies both the particular and the general by including not only the personal aspect of one’s upheaval but the generality of the historical context within which we all walk about.  Perilous times, indeed.

Medical conditions tend to specifically impact individuals in this way — for, in the particular, it hits upon us as a crisis of quality.  How we have lived; the lifestyle we have chosen; the priorities of what constitutes “worthiness”; all of these are challenged by a medical condition that begins to insidiously eat away at our body, our mind, our spirit.

Whether by intrusion of pain or something within us that no longer “works” normally; of private functions that have become worn out, or perhaps it is the memory, mental capacity or ability to cope with daily stresses; but of whatever origin or outcome, we look about for cures and comfort and often find none but some palliative form in a pill or a surgery that fails to correct.  Times become perilous because of circumstances beyond our control.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, perilous times often require perilous choices, and preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, becomes a necessary next step in attempting to forestall the inevitable results of these very times that we deem to be perilous, whether in a particular sense or in a more generalized historical context.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer Representation for OPM Disability Claims: The cluster of choices

Often, choices come in pairs, and the difficulty is in deciding between the binary alternatives offered.  Chocolate or vanilla?  Apple pie or cherry?  If taste were the sole determining factor, one can simply submit to the subliminal voices churning deep within the intestinal caverns of digestive tracts, and simply declare one as opposed to the other.  Of course, in such matters, one can “cheat”, and simply say to the host or hostess, “Oh, they both look so delicious, can I just have a small sliver of both?”

Why is it that if there are three or four to choose from, suddenly such a response shifts it into the category of gluttony, where people begin to look you up and down to see whether or not diet, exercise or lack of self-discipline is the problem?  Why is it, say, that there are various pies – apple, cherry, rhubarb and pumpkin, and you cannot choose between the four or more; is it okay to say at a dinner party, “Well, can I have a sliver of the apple and rhubarb”, but NOT to say, “Can I have a very small sliver of all four?” (or eight?) It is the cluster of choices that make for difficulties, almost in every sector of life.

Today, of course, the modernity of overload and the excessive, almost unlimited choices displayed, presented and given, makes for difficulties in the cognitive grey areas of the human mind.  Have human beings evolved sufficiently to be able to cope with such alternatives presented?

As a child, many decades ago, one remembers that the local “supermarket” merely had two, maybe three items on a shelf of any one product.  Ice cream shops had three or four flavors, and if there were five – well, we stood at the counter with amazed looks and couldn’t quite decide until Mom or Dad threatened to choose for us.

Does a lioness, or a cheetah, walk about through the wilds and come upon a herd of antelopes and pause because she cannot decide which one looks the most promising?  Or have the evolutionary stresses upon the fight to survive already determined the dominant characteristics that will prevail in such decision-making?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must decide when, how, and in what manner to file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, ultimately to be submitted through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the cluster of choices to choose from must be deliberative, with great seriousness, and with an approach that must look after one’s own best interests.

Often, however, because of the clouding of judgment wrought on resulting from one’s medical conditions – i.e., pain, profound fatigue, inability to focus and concentrate – it is difficult to separate between the cluster of choices given.  But Federal Disability Retirement requires a cogency of judgment, thought, decision-making and affirmation of choices, and in engaging this complex administrative process, it may be a good idea to consider consulting and hiring an experienced Federal Disability Retirement lawyer, in order to bifurcate between the cluster of choices presented, so that the best option and course of purposive actions can be embraced with a thoughtful and deliberative approach.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Legal Representation: Sad stories

Is sadness relative?  Are there sad stories that are so sad that even the ones that were considered sad prior to the sadder story being told, somehow nullify the lesser sad stories and make them into not sad stories?  Do we, after hearing the sadder tale, turn to the first story teller and say, “Yours was not so sad, after all, and in fact you have it pretty good”?

If a person tells of having just buried his mother, and you ask, “How old was she?”  He responds, “She was 95”.  Then, someone else says, “I just had to bury my 5 year old daughter.”  There would be a dead silence, would there not?  Surely, we say to ourselves, the death of a person who had a long life is not nearly as sad as the ending of one so tender in years, and as death is merely a part of life, there is something inherently sadder about the child’s life ending than that of a person who had a long life?

Both represent a life ended, but it is the knowledge that the former had fulfilled the natural course of a life while the latter was the victim of an early tragedy, unnaturally ended and interrupted for all of its promise, hope and anticipation for the future – surely, there is a qualitative difference between the two sad tales?

Or of someone who was recently fired from a job and is desperately trying to seek new employment; say that person is looking through the want-ads in the employment section (yes, yes, that is entirely outdated nowadays with special apps for resume-sharing and online submissions, etc.), and in the course of searching, reads a story about a far-off country where war, famine and general devastation are ongoing, and discovers with interest a sub-story about a family that is homeless and is being hunted down by enemies, etc.  Does one at that point straighten one’s posture and declare, “Wow, even though I am jobless, I have it pretty good in comparison to that family in country X”?

Yet, if sadness is relative, does that necessarily negate the sad tale completely, or does it merely reduce its impact and value until another comparative judgment is made?  Do we go and search out a less sad tale after debunking the sadness of one’s own with a sadder tale, in order to “restore” the sadness of our own?  Or, does each sadness remain a sadness in isolation regardless of the comparative sadness to another’s?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the sadness of that medical condition becomes such and to an extent where the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, it may become necessary to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, ultimately filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Sadness aside, every tale of ending a career is a sadness in and of itself, but the key to getting beyond any such sadness rests in the next steps, not in the footsteps of one’s past or those of others, but in getting good legal advice and moving on into the next phase of one’s future.  Anything else would, whether in comparison to another’s sadness or not, be the truly sad tale of sadness defined.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer Representation OPM Disability Retirement: Perspective versus reality

One may counter that the contrast is no different than that which we encounter daily, especially in this universe of millennials and post-millennial era – of opinion versus fact, or truth versus falsehood (and now the new one, of “news” versus “fake news” or “facts” versus “alternative facts”).  But “perspective” versus “reality” has some subtle nuances that need to be explicated.  For one thing, one’s perspective may be identical to the reality one possesses a perspective upon; or, more likely, it is merely an interpretation that may differ from someone else’s.

One could, of course, argue that all of reality is merely a perspective, and this would comport with the Kantian view that our phenomenological experiences can never depict the “noumenal” universe (Kant’s verbiage) that is outside of the categorical impositions of our human make-up, and that therefore the human perspective is something that cannot be avoided, anymore than a dog’s perspective can be assumed or challenged, or a bat’s perspective (refer to Thomas Nagel on that) would be understood or comprehended by a human’s perspective.

In other words, we can never completely disown the perspective imposed by the innate structures of our own “kind”, and thus it may be an error to ever represent a contrast between “perspective” and “reality” (thus the misnomer of the title above, “Perspective versus reality”), but should always encompass and embrace a commensurate connection of “Perspective of reality” (a consonance of the two) or “Perspective and reality” (a conjoining compatibility of both).

Yet, we know that certain people interpret things differently from what we believe constitutes an accurate portrayal of “reality”.  However, so long as we stay within certain confines of accepted normative interpretations, we rarely contest or openly disagree with alternative depictions, unless it is to obtain a consensus that somehow disproves the validity of the other’s portrayal (i.e., “Yes, but John, Joe and May agree with me”, as if quantification of perspectives somehow diminishes the accuracy of another’s; as opposed to saying, “Well, Copernicus thought otherwise while the rest of the world continued to maintain a geocentric perspective of the universe” – unless, of course, you are ignoring the “rest of the world” to include China, Japan, etc.),

Yet, there are factors that have to be considered when discussing the distinction between “perspective” and “reality”, and one of them often involves medical conditions – an element of reality that often skewers perspective.  That is why, for a Federal or Postal employee who is 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 importance of relying upon accurate information, good and sound legal advice, and a straight and narrow path towards a successful outcome with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (no matter the length of time it may take these days), is important.

For, medical conditions will often alter the perspective of an individual as to the reality of one’s situation, and so it is an “outside” source (the medical condition itself) which needs a counterbalancing force (otherwise referred to as an “objective” advocate, i.e., a lawyer) in order to present an effective, objective, persuasive representative in order to “re-present” the perspective of the Federal Disability Retirement applicant.  Thus, in short, it is a perspective versus reality issue, and thus not entirely a misnomer as previously stated.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer: Insular Delusions

The advantages of holding one’s own counsel are multiple:  little internal strife; dictatorial rule; decision by fiat; complete control and dominance; no blame can accrue to others.  The downside, of course, are just as numerous:  no input from others; the limitation of new ideas, constrained by the perspective of one’s own thoughts and concerns; the fool’s impropriety of listening and following one’s own judgment; little to no brainstorming.

Judgement and decision-making by singular counsel has worked well in countries, corners and civilizations which respond subserviently to dominance and domineering.  But when the populace begins to realize that the emperor is not as wise as once thought (or declared by fiat to be by the dictates of the royal palace, issued in blaring tones and trumpeted daily in printed leaflets used by the peasantry for bookmarks and beddings), then the rumblings of a hunger beyond mere need and wants begins to pervade.

Insular delusions occur because the holding of one’s own counsel ultimately results in a circularity of logic and judgment, and unless new and fresh perspectives are allowed in, self-immolation is the resulting loss of vigor and vitality.  Further, when a deteriorating force begins to gnaw away, such as an unexpected medical condition, then sound judgment and rational perspectives give way to exaggerated and exponential quantification of fear and paranoia.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to file 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 decision-making process should always include counsel outside, above, beyond, and objectively-attained, in making decisions about one’s future and security from the ravages pending by one’s agency or the U.S. Postal Service.

Federal Disability Retirement is not just about securing one’s future; it is, moreover, a matter of establishing a capacity of reaffirming one’s potential in becoming employed, without penalty, beyond the Federal sector; of making sure that one’s accrued Federal time in-service is not for nothing; and to ensure that one’s rights have been protected in order to move forward into the future.

Insular delusions occur when an individual retains the sole counsel of one’s own accumulated wisdom; but as wisdom is not merely the aggregate of one’s own opinions and perspective, the delusions which follow are like the windmills of old where knighted grandeur resulted in the myth of Sisyphus, where the toil of rolling a boulder up the hill of agony left one depleted in the soul of the absurd.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire