Tag Archives: can a professional counselor write the medical reasons for federal disability? yes

Federal Disability Retirement: The Value of Complaint

The older generation would probably disagree.  For, complaining about anything in this world “never gets you anywhere”, is the refrain often heard from a generation which endured the Great Depression, a World War, the Cold War, nuclear threats — and, more recently, of global terrorism.

And where did “complaining” get us?  Nowhere.  Government keeps getting bigger and bigger, more intrusive into our lives, while the services offered become less efficient.  Things always seem to get worse, over time, despite promises of greater efficiency and openness.

Yet, there is a value in complaining — at a minimum, of simply releasing the pent-up frustrations amassed through standing in long lines, inability to get through to a live person on the telephone, and a myriad of other frustrations and withheld, repressed irritations.  Complaining also has the value of letting your concerns be known to others.

There is, of course, a “fine line” between complaining (a negative connotation) and expressing one’s “concerns” (a valid, more-acceptable linguistic contortion that is somehow a “positive” engagement).  Perhaps it has to do with the accompanying tone of voice, facial expression, or just the plain fact that if the listening individual likes you, then you are expressing a concern, but if he/she decides to not like you, then you are “complaining”.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under the FERS system, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “complaining” is a necessary component in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.  For one thing, you need to — at a minimum — have some documentary proof of your health complaints (i.e., have a history of medical treatment).  Moreover, it is often helpful if your agency knows of your health concerns (here we go again — a more “positive” way of putting it).

And when you are ready, call a Federal Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin to complain to him about the complex bureaucratic process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement case.  And as to the value of complaint?  I promise to listen.

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 for Federal & Postal Workers: Worlds Apart

It is a phrase which is oft-used to describe the distance still to be traversed when negotiations break down; but more generally, it reveals the differences between people, ideas, countries and cultures.  There are, indeed, many different worlds — of countries; societies; of the internal “world” by which we live — our thoughts, cares, conceptual lives and pondering narratives.

So long as the inner world by which we operate is consistent with the “objective” reality of the Kantian “noumenal” universe, we are deemed sane and left alone.  It is when the distance between the objective world and our own world of thoughts becomes too disjointed, overly separated and — worlds apart — that we are deemed insane or otherwise disconnected from reality.  The key is to maintain a semblance of worlds knit closely together, lest becoming worlds apart leads to falling apart.

That is what filing for Federal/Postal Disability Retirement is all about — of keeping one’s universe from becoming worlds apart, or from falling apart.  Medical conditions separate one’s private world of pain, suffering, depression, anxiety, etc., from the “world” of one’s Federal or Postal job. Federal Disability Retirement is that bridge between Federal or Postal employment and termination from that world because of a medical condition.

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest your application for Federal Disability Retirement is denied and remains worlds apart from a successful Federal Disability Retirement filing.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee’s Medical Retirement: A Perspective on Truth

The traditional philosophical arguments surrounding the nature of Truth, the “battle” between “Absolute Truth” and “Pure Relativism”, etc., are too often simplified and reduced to sloganeering and shouting matches which end up being nothing more than accusations as to whether one believes in a Higher Order of Being — or not.  Yet, it is often a perspective upon appearances which determines the “truth” of a statement.

Plato pointed this out in reference to the three towers in the distance; if seen from one direction, they appear to be only one; if seen from another, they constitute 3 distinct objects.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in denying a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, takes a similar perspective on truth.  They will take each medical condition cited, isolate each and minimize the impact of the separated medical conditions upon one’s ability or inability to perform the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position, and by approaching the “truth” this way, can purport to make your case appear “as if” you never had any case at all.

Now, some might critically argue that such an approach is “disingenuous” (i.e., somewhat akin to the “absolutist” argument), while others merely view this as “clever” (i.e., akin to the “relativists”).  The point of OPM’s approach is to make you believe that you never had a chance to begin with, and to have you go away without filing for Reconsideration, thus reducing their caseload by a numerical insignificance until multiplied by an exponential factor of greater percentages.

The way to counter OPM’s argument?  To identify their approach and counter it with a different, more powerful perspective on truth — by further medical documentation and more powerful legal argumentation which makes OPM’s argument impotent and irrelevant.

For, in the end, a perspective on truth must be countered by proposing an alternative perspective on truth — of showing that the three-towers-in-one is a mere illusion and a trick of the eye.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire