Brady, Deflategate & OPM Federal Disability Retirement

It is likely he knew, by evidentiary implication, as the report stated; whether, in the offseason, people pay any attention at all, is another matter altogether; and the dismissive refutations that attempt to justify the actions by minimizing the impact of the insignificant advantage gained by engaging in such conduct, misses the point.

At a certain level of any professional endeavor, the proportional advantage gained by even the smallest of competitive edge, increases by an exponential factor.  When everyone is good at something, then even a minimal sliver of market advantage makes the difference.  This is well known to everyone who once performed at the “top of his or her game”.

For individuals who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, the issue of competitive advantage is tantamount to the proverbial “no brainer”.  Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who work at peak performance levels for an agency, recognize the concept of employment disadvantages, and how a traumatic or chronic event such as an injury or a progressively debilitating medical condition will begin to reduce the capacity once reached.

For Federal and Postal employees 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, it is the deliberateness and intentionality of engaging in such conduct, as exemplified by the case of Deflategate, which irks the Federal or Postal employee.

Life already offers enough tumults and turmoils, and when others engage in acts which clearly violate the standard rules of fair play and traditions of a mere game, while others — such as Federal and Postal employees who must end one’s career early because of an unexpected medical condition — must trudge along, it only points out the exponential factor of what lengths some will go to, just because they think they can.  Not to mention agencies, supervisors, coworkers and other unnamed personnel whose Federal fiefdoms must be protected.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Law: Arguing by Logical Extension

Often, in legal argumentation, one must simply use the available evidence garnered, and make the best of it.  In many areas of law, especially in administrative legal venues involving Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, the law favors agencies which hide behind the shield of “efficiency of the Federal Service”, in implementing sanctions, adverse actions, restrictions of leave usage, proposing and deciding upon removals (whether based upon reasons of medical conditions or other basis), etc.

In a typical OPM Disability Retirement case, however, there are just as many procedural and substantive legal precedents which can be utilized effectively to favor the Federal and Postal employee.

For Federal and Postal employees under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, who intend upon filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the vast array from the arsenal of statutes, case-law, legal precedents and interpretive advantages gained through years and decades of predecessors to one’s present filing, should be recognized, researched and reapplied at every available opportunity.  For, if the greatest compliment that one can accord to another in the world of art, is one of mimicry and plagiarism, so in the world of law, it is to take the precedent of past legal victories, and to argue to the fullest the logical extension thereof.

That often occurs, unfortunately, only when it is a “hard case“, as opposed to the ones where there is little to no room for argument because of the overwhelming evidence available.  It is, in the end, an unfortunate circumstance that, often the test of brilliance manifests when the case is weak, and one must utilize the capacity available through means of arguing by logical extension, because that is precisely what is left — argument, logic, and extension of the first two principles.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire