FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: Subtraction

The principle of abundance implicates progressive and unending addition, resulting in the exponential explosion of accumulation; and in a society which preaches acquisition as the hallmark of success, the reversal of that idea — of subtraction — is anathema and constitutes a failed life.  Subtraction is to do without; and the reduction of acquisitions is considered tantamount to failure, where success is measured in terms of the quantity one possesses.

The young man begins life with little more than change in his pocket; and from there, the trajectory of what is considered a qualitative life means that there is always addition, as opposed to subtraction.  That is why it is difficult to accept stoppage, or negation, and lessening; because the normative value we accept from the beginning is tied to accumulation.

For the Federal and Postal Worker who suffers from a medical condition such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability to progress in one’s career, it becomes a difficult time because sacrifices must always be made, and the negation of progressive accumulation becomes a fact of life.

But one must always look upon such events in their proper perspective, and filing for Federal Disability Retirement, whether the Federal or Postal Worker is under FERS or CSRS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is often the first positive step.  It is the stoppage to the trajectory of decline, and allows for the Federal or Postal Worker to stabilize a chaotic situation, and to move forward with some semblance of financial security, and the hope that a new career or vocation may be entered and engaged down the road.  For, Federal Disability Retirement allows for the annuitant to earn income up to 80% of what one’s former Federal or Postal position currently pays, in addition to the receipt of one’s OPM Disability Retirement annuity.

Subtraction for the Federal or Postal employee need not be forever; to live without is merely a temporary situation, and the trajectory of the modern success principle may be reinvigorated yet.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Prospective Affirmation versus Retrospective Correction

Moving forward with the right tools is generally more effective than looking back and trying to correct deficiencies; thus, the age-old adage of being penny wise, pound foolish applies; and in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to make a determination early on to clearly assess the strength of a case, the needs required to optimize such strengths, and to obtain assistance where necessary.

As to an objective assessment of a case:  one is normally not the best evaluator in analyzing the strength or weakness of one’s own Federal Disability retirement case.  This is because of a self-evident principle operating in each such Federal Disability Retirement case:  the subject who suffers from the medical condition cannot objectively evaluate from a third-party’s perspective the viability of a case in terms of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the coherence and compelling nature of the evidence to be presented.

Most believe that his or her case is a “slam-dunk”; few in actual reality ever are.  To get denied by OPM at the First Stage; then at the Reconsideration Stage; then to go pro se before the Merit Systems Protection Board; then to obtain a lawyer — while it is good to get a lawyer at any stage of the process — is it wise to attempt a retrospective correction of one’s mistakes?  At what stage does it become too late?  Where in the process does “correction” override “mistakes”?  Compare that to a prospective affirmation of one’s inadequacies — that it is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively evaluate one’s own case; that an effective compilation and presentation of a Federal Disability Retirement case is necessary in order to win in a Federal Disability Retirement case; and that providing a legal citationin support of one’s case is an essential element of a compelling case:  combining it all, it would seem that being wise for the pound is preferable than being foolish for the penny (to make an inverse adage applicable).

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Each Step as a Building Block for the Next

Of course, the penultimate approach would be to have the first stage of the process in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, to be the first and final step of the process.  But life in general is imperfect; particular lives are generally in disarray; and to expect any administrative process — especially one at the Federal level — to be one of attaining perfection at the First Stage, is to expect that there are no ancillary motives, purposes or quota-driven mindsets behind the decision-making process.

The very concept of a “building block” is itself an interesting one, for it is a metaphor used to convey a sense of progress.  And that would be the key.  One does not purposefully leave out any single building block in the process of constructing a foundation.  Instead, each block is an addition to the greater expanse of the structure, solidifying its base, preparing for the completion such that the end product will withstand weather, elements, unforeseen circumstances and potential challenges to the structural integrity itself.

Similarly, if the U.S. Office of Personnel Management questions an issue or aspect of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application, the entire structure of the application should not be in danger of crumbling; rather, it may be a question which leads to an easy resolution, or a clarification which can be answered, challenged or expanded upon.

That is why time expended at the initial stage of the process before the filing itself — the pre-formulation part of the process, if you will — is important.  Old adages die hard, and thus to be penny wise and pound foolish is perhaps the most appropriate, wisdom-filled statement which proves itself perennially valid.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: The Chance of Winning

To characterize the filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in terms of the percentage chances of “winning” is a natural occurrence.  While not strictly or metaphorically similar to a sports event, or a duel or challenge between two opponents, nevertheless, to obtain an approval is considered a “win” and to be denied throughout the entire administrative process is considered a “loss”.

Thus, attorneys also view their careers in such terms — of placing each case either in the “win” column, or its only polar opposite, the “loss” column.  This is a competitive society; one in which most things are characterized in such a way, and to bemoan the reality of viewing it that way would be a waste of energy, time and focus.

To win, then, is the ultimate goal (obviously), and therefore one must attempt to quantitatively increase one’s chances that the Federal or Postal employee will “win” a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.  Yet, the approach and methodology of too many Federal and Postal employees who prepare, formulate and compile his or her Federal Disability Retirement application, reflects the very opposite approach.  To “win”, as in every other competitive arena of life, requires preparation, planning and purposeful strategies.

For a Federal Disability Retirement application, it requires proper and effective medical documentation; a narrative stated in “connecting the dots“; and a readiness to reply to the legal challenges which are likely to be forthcoming.  If the Federal or Postal employee is going to characterize a Federal Disability Retirement application in terms of being a competitive activity, then it needs to be approached as such.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Focus, or Lack Thereof…

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS from the Office of Personnel Management, it is important in the beginning stages of the process to have a clear, charted course in creating the nexus between one’s medical conditions and the type of positional duties required by the Federal or Postal job which one is slotted in.  

Lack of clarity leads to meandering; meandering results in the potential danger of entering into territories which can have a negative and detrimental impact; such resulting negative endings at any stage of the process only extends the time by forcing the applicant to appeal the case to the next stage, and having to correct and explain the mis-steps which resulted from the original lack of clarity and focus.  Thus, a single mistake at the beginning of the process can have a compounding effect upon the entire application process, and that is why it is important to start off with clarity, focus, and a purposeful plan.  

In the study of Philosophy, the subject of Metaphysics almost always encompasses the concept of “teleology” — the idea that there is a purposeful end based upon various logical arguments, such as cause-and-effect, the argument from design, etc.  In analogous form, it is important to have a teleological approach to preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management.  

As with the design argument in metaphysics, there are certain “guideposts” which are important to use — i.e., what the doctors state in their reports; the parameters of one’s position description; the type of job which one has (sedentary or out in the field), etc.  Within those boundaries, one should remain.  Wandering in thought leads to areas of unintended harm.  Stay within the boundaries of the questions posed, and one has a safer haven away from trespassing into areas uncharted, unknown, and undesired.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Early Retirement for Disabled Federal Workers: Agency Pressures

Agencies have an inherent, built-in mechanism to pressure the Federal or Postal employee to quickly file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the Office of Personnel Management, and indeed, often the Human Resources Department will pressure the Federal employee to prepare, formulate and file the application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits in an expedited manner.  

This can be both a positive thing, as well as contain some negative consequences.  Ultimately, the self-interest of the Agency is in vacating the position presently being held by a non-productive (or so it is viewed and thought) dead-weight, in order to have it filled by someone else for the efficiency of the service.  

This is not to say that there are not some compassionate, empathetic H.R. Personnel, or Supervisors or others in the Agency who are attempting to “fast-track” a Federal Disability Retirement application in order to look out for the best interests of the Federal or Postal Employee.  There are some good people.  But the balance of alternatives must always be weighed between filing something quickly, and doing it properly and thoroughly.  

Pressure from the agency should not be the primary basis of one’s response; obtaining the proper medical documentation, the doctor’s reports, and carefully preparing the Applicant’s Statement of Disability in order to increase the chances of success at the Initial Stage of the Application for Federal Disability Retirement with the Office of Personnel Management, should always be the paramount and first order of consideration.  

Each entity has a self-interest; making sure that one’s own self-interest is properly looked after, is the first order of business in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under either FERS or CSRS, from the Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire