Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Sense of Justice

Why do we speak in those terms?  Why a “sense” of X, as opposed to X itself?  Is it because it does not precisely fit into the strict definition of X, but may well be implied by it?  “Justice” is often enmeshed with a definition involving morality and the strict bifurcation between “right” and “wrong” — as well as compliance with “the law”.

Personal Injury lawyers will often scoff at the idea that compensatory damages awarded necessarily implies the level of justice received; if that were the case, most people who seek money damages would never be rewarded with the justice sought, whether of a “sense” or not.

Similarly, is there any rationality in discussing the concept of “Justice” in domestic relations cases?  Is there a “just cause” to pursue when two people decide to separate, especially when children are involved?  Is it all “subjective”, as in the case of “fairness” or “unfairness”?  Or is there a more “objective” standard — as in the strict definition where the requirements of X are met by the proof of Y, leading to the unmistakable conclusion that “Justice has been served”?  If that were the case, wouldn’t all of “Justice” be a mere tautology?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who seek to meet the eligibility requirements for Federal Disability Retirement, the “sense of Justice” is achieved by proving one’s case, meeting the preponderance of the evidence test, then obtaining an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

However, to achieve that goal — that “sense of Justice” — one must prepare the groundwork and set the foundation in order to meet the legal criteria posited.  In order to do that, it is wise to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest your sense of Justice were to fall somewhat short because of a lack of understanding as to what the law requires.


Robert R. McGill, Esquire


Legal Representation on Federal Disability Retirement Claims: The Source

Every vibrant and expanding civilization relies upon it; the crumbling ones disregard it; and the stagnant ones begin to question their necessity. It is applied in various contexts, but the importance of maintaining its relevance as the authoritative foundation cannot easily be dismissed.

We hear the word used in different contexts: Whereof the source of the the River Nile? What are your sources in arriving at your conclusions? And are they “original sources”, or “secondary” ones? And of the infamous “anonymous” sources — can they be trusted, or does the mere intimation of anonymity betray an unreliability precisely because there can be no accountability by the very nature of a faceless and nameless origination?

In modernity, since everything is “sourced” through Googling, and very little attribution is verified by “original” sources, does it matter anymore whether one’s asserted authority for declaring X, Y or Z is based upon primary or secondary “sources”, or even if it was an anonymous “third-hand” source?

Furthermore, does an obscure source of a little-known citation have any greater impact than one that is well-publicized and of common knowledge to all? If, in the course of a conversation, everyone relies upon the believability of a “source” — say, a stockbroker who has never been wrong, but then someone pipes in that “so-and-so” says to stay away from that company because it’s about to crumble under its heavy debt-structure” — who do we believe? Does it matter if the “so-and-so” referred to is a Board Member, or some insider at the accounting department of the company who is “in the know”?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition is impacting the Federal or Postal Worker’s ability and capacity to continue in his or her career, the sources and resources that you put together in preparing, formulating and filing your Federal Disability Retirement application should be original, reliable and dependable. — from the doctors who support you, to the lawyer who will represent you, to the credibility of the “sources” you gather.

For, in the end, the search for the source of the Nile matters not for “where” it is, but from what mystery of origination would flow such that the beauty of a civilization would spawn such a wealth of culture and originality.


Robert R. McGill, Esquire


OPM Disability Retirement: Human & humane activity

Does the dropping of the single vowel make a difference?  Should it?  Or, should the very status of being “human” encompass and naturally include being “humane”, as well?  Should they not be synonyms, or even indistinguishable as an amalgamation of vowels and consonants, as opposed to two distinct words, even if one is considered as a mere extension of the other?

For, it is precisely the unique characteristic and capacity of the former to exhibit the latter, and it is the latter which defines the essence of the former; and so, in many respects, they are identical terms, even if the latter contains a total of 6 letters, comprised of 3 consonants and 3 vowels, whereas the former has one less, with 1 more consonant than a vowel, making it into an uneven number of letters as opposed to a balanced equality of 3 to three, and making it into a ratio of 3:2.

Yet, doesn’t the essence of X require the need for an antonym to exist in order for a contrast to magnify the truth of it?  Thus do opposites enhance each other – does “Being” make any sense without “Nothingness?”  Would “happiness” have an existential sense without “sadness”?  In that logical entrapment, doesn’t the essence of being “human” require, by logical necessity and extension, the capacity to act its opposite – of cruelty, inhumanity, genocidal tendencies and masochistic egoism of the highest order?

That is the unfortunate reflection of reality from the refraction of a word; being “human” does not necessarily compute to being “humane”, although its opposite is apparently not true – if one is “humane”, one necessarily posits that the active agent of such empathy, caring and sensitive treatment is that of a “human”, and not some other species of animal that can exhibit such a trait.  But is this true in all cases?  Do we not witness “humane” treatment by others – by dogs, cats and pigs, perhaps?  Or do we attribute other characteristics to explain away such behavior – such as “loyalty”, “habit” or “trained behaviors”?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, “humane” treatment by other “humans” is often sorely lacking.  What is it about having a medical condition that somehow brings out the worst in others?  Is it a fear that such a condition reflects a future reality that others see and want to avoid, and therefore begin to treat the person who possesses it like a plague of some short?

Agencies are supposed to treat workers with identified medical conditions in a “humane” way and, if they do not, there are laws concerning the requirement to “accommodate” in place; and, if there are no accommodations, then preparing an OPM Disability Retirement application is the next “humane” law that is there for the human being beset with a medical condition.

That is the peculiarity of laws, of course – they are passed by humans with the knowledge that they do not always engage in humane treatment, and that is why laws governing Federal Disability Retirement are there to be applied – for the human who requires being forced to engage in humane treatment of others, precisely because humans have shown a consistency tendency in history to act inhumanely.


Robert R. McGill, Esquire


FERS & CSRS Medical Retirement: Counting coup

It is not always in the outward and very-public display of emotions, in which a battle is fought and won; often, it is the restraining of a capacity and potential to reflexively counter, but held back just at the point of harm, that determines the pinnacle of gaining prestige.

Acts of bravery for a Plains Indian did not necessarily require harm inflicted upon an enemy; counting coup and the subsequent rise in respect and prestige could involve the mere touching of an enemy, while escaping unharmed despite that close encounter with the savage face of danger.  It is not always in the completion of an intended act that the standard by which the success or failure of the act is judged; rather, just at the point of fulfillment, the holding back or the deliberate withdrawal can be the penultimate evidence that one could have, but by sheer will of grace of self-control, did not.

In Western Civilization, perhaps the parallelism can only be embraced with an analogy of sorts; of the subtle remark with a duality of meanings, placed just at the right time in response to an otherwise untamable tongue wagging about with destructive force by its aggressive tone, ugly words and offensive remarks.  Or, of the realization that one is now a prisoner in an “enemy” camp, and the escape out is to stealthily retreat in the quiet of a proverbial night, without harming the members who may once have been counted as friends and colleagues.

This is often the situation the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker finds him/herself in, when a medical condition arises and the Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job.  Suddenly, the Federal or Postal employee is treated as an “enemy”, and the initial reaction is to counterattack, as the initial onslaught by one’s coworkers, supervisors, managers, etc., was neither deservedly received no invited by any act or statement by the innocent Federal or Postal worker.

But is the battle – the actually harm inflicted and the legal imbroglio ensuing – worth the hassle?  Or, is it better to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, submitted (ultimately) to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and like the warriors of past in the battles fought in the far-off Plains of the American West, before the white settlers came to decimate and exterminate with the modern technology of weaponry unheard of in its efficiency as a killing machine – is it preferable by counting coup and withdrawing unharmed, in order to secure a future brighter for tomorrow, and less left with the residue of bloodstained wounds harboring lasting pain in the essence of one’s soul.


Robert R. McGill, Esquire


FERS & CSRS Disability Retirements: Focus away from ‘self’

The heightened problems emanating from a chronic medical condition cannot be quantified; as the medical issues themselves become exacerbated while attempting to work and engage in other “major life activities”, the pain, psychiatric debilitation and interruption of things once taken for granted, become all the more magnified and exponentially exaggerated in significance, relevance and focus of daily contention.  Or, to put it in more common parlance, it makes us grouchier as the day goes.

Federal Disability Retirement is a benefit offered for all FERS employees (and any in the older CSRS system who may still be around – a rarity, like dinosaurs and gnomes of past ages), and is meant as a progressive paradigm of inestimable worth.  Unlike other systems of compensation, it encourages the (former) Federal or Postal employee to seek employment in the private sector, because the generous allowance that the former Federal or Postal employee can make up to 80% of what one’s former salary currently pays, on top of the annuity itself, allows for “the system” to be a self-paying entity, because such individuals then pay taxes and contribute “back into” the very system which is being accessed.

The fact that it is such a thoughtful, progressive system is rare – for, government bureaucracies tend not to embrace an insightful program of wider application, but this is a case in point where the system “works”.

That being said, the Federal or Postal employee who continues to try and extend one’s career in the Federal sector or the U.S. Postal Service by “hoping” – and, do not misunderstand, for hope as an element of human focus for events yet to occur, is a good thing – that the medical condition will get better, and thus to delay initiating the complex process of 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, does so at the peril of self-focusing immolation.

The point of getting Federal Disability Retirement benefits is just that – to be able to attend to the medical condition itself; to attain restorative sleep; to not be embroiled in the vicious cycle of having to work at a job where one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties cannot be met because of the medical condition itself, and therefore a stark reminder, on a daily and sustained basis, upon one’s self, the limiting aspects of the medical condition, and the inability to escape the constant gravitational dissection of “me, myself and I”.  That’s the rub, isn’t it?

As you try and get better, those around you – supervisors, coworkers, etc. – begin to harass, criticize and compound the problem by redirecting your shortcomings resulting from the very medical conditions from which you are trying to get better.  Federal Disability Retirement is the next step in that process – where, once attained, the stress of focusing upon one’s self is relieved by being able to actually focus upon what is important:  one’s health, and the pathway to a secure future through getting approved for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.


Robert R. McGill, Esquire