FERS Medical Retirement: Response to the Shotgun Denial

When the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issues its Initial Denial of a Federal/Postal Disability Retirement application, the usual methodology of argumentation they employ is likened to a shotgun blast — with very little aim or focus.

It is a frustrating narrative to read, and all the more so because they have had an unlimited amount of time to formulate and write the denial, whereas the denied applicant is provided a very short response time.  The Denial Letter can appear extensive in scope, and the initial reaction is to try and rebut each and every line of the denial letter — which is the wrong approach to take.

The “right” and most effective responsive approach to take when responding to an OPM Denial of the Initial application is to categorize the various issues into a manageable number of subcategories, and then to respond to each in a systematic manner, and as to each, to cite a supportive case law that favors your argument.

Remember always that OPM’s purpose in denying your case is two-fold — either in hopes that you will not respond in a timely manner or not at all (thereby obviating the need to do anything further because you will have lost your administrative right to proceed any further in the process); or, that the process will appear so complex that you will fail to respond adequately to the multiple points of the denial letter.

Do not get caught up in the “fairness” issues — for, the entire bureaucratic process is unfairly weighted in favor of OPM at every turn, and to become embroiled in arguing against the unfairness will only lead to endless frustration and get you nowhere.

Instead, contact an OPM Disability Attorney who is familiar with FERS Disability Retirement Law, and begin to prepare and formulate an effective response to OPM’s Shotgun Denial of your Federal Disability Application under FERS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
FERS 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 Pariah

The irony is that some in the universe of bloggers and ceaseless appearances on the Internet consider that the word itself should be cast out of the sphere of daily lexicon usage; the word itself is considered a pariah, and therefore is treated as such.

Yet, words in and of themselves have no meaning; Wittgenstein is correct in positing that the concept of a “private language game” known exclusively to a single individual is nonsensical — literally — precisely because “meaning” is imported by the manner in which a word or sentence is communicated between two or more individuals, and the purpose and motive by which it is applied.

A pariah is an outcast, and there are many in the world who are treated as such.  Whatever its historical origins or derivative usage which have engendered insult or resulted in a connotation of disparagement, the problem is not in the word itself but in the motive behind its application.  The word itself is actually quite descriptive and describes accurately the manner in which many individuals in society are treated.  Expungement of the word would indeed be a great loss.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the treatment of such individuals as a “Pariah” aptly describes how they are looked upon.

Consult with a Federal Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and see whether or not you might qualify for a Federal Disability Retirement annuity so that you can escape from the designation of a “pariah” and move forward in a life where you are treated as an equal, and not as an outcast.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement under FERS: Translation & Interpretation

On a superficial level, the difference between the two is often one of merely the “medium”: Translation involves the written text, while interpretation concerns the oral conversion from one language to another.  Used in a more complex, nuanced sense, however, both can involve oral and written communication; the difference being, translation encompasses the conversion of one language into another, whether orally or in written form, whereas interpretation involves the meaning behind the words translated.

We do this with ease each and every day; of listening to voices and sounds, warnings and admonitions, directions and requests — interpreting their meaning, force, relevance and impact as we live our lives.  We may translate the body language of another into what we deem as their “meaning”; or visit a foreign country with a dictionary in hand and attempt to comprehend the words and phrases spoken all around us.

We also interpret what is being said — of the content of the collective words and phrases jettisoned from mouths flapping words and emitting sounds, and how we interpret what we hear can make a difference in what we do, how we react and why we engage in the acts we embrace.  Law is an interpretive process, as well as a procedure involving translation.  It is a different kind of a language game involving statutes, case-laws and precedents that must undergo the complex translation and interpretation process.

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, it is important to consult with a FERS Disability Retirement Attorney who specializes in the translation and interpretation of Federal OPM Disability Retirement Law.

Don’t be left lost in the “foreign country” of Federal Disability Retirement Law and its complex administrative processes without consulting a “dictionary” of terms and legal phrases.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Information: Truth and Falsity

There is much discussion about the nature of truth and falsity in our world — if, indeed, shouting and counter-shouting constitutes discourse rising to the level of a “discussion”.  Whether there is Truth with a capital “T”; or are there various versions of multiple “truths”, where my truth is just as valid as your truth, and falsity as merely the negation of yours at the sacrificial behest of mine?

There are apparently “truths”, “alternative truths” and “parallel truths”, and perhaps all of them can “get along” and vie for the vaunted position of the lofty “Truth” with the capital “T”, so long as we all don’t roll upon the carpet with laughter within our bellies demeaning the statements made by various politicians claiming a corner of their truth as opposed to the truths that we all know to be true.

The truth is, Truth can take various forms, and it is the subtle distinctions that are lost in the inane discourse of modernity where relativism, lies, inaccuracies and the capacity to conflate and confuse have made it all “bosh”.

To begin with, there is a presumption of a truthful statement — otherwise, the entire concept of a “lie” would become meaningless.  Then, of course, there are statements of truth that are contextually relevant, as in the statement, “I am staying home today with my sick child.”  If such a statement were to be declared on another day, it may be an untruthful statement.  Furthermore, personal experiences attached to statements undermine the objectivity and universality of the utterance, as in the simple declarative, “I feel good today”.

The very concept of truth and falsity is much more complex than the simple and inane discussion that has developed from the recent discourse of truths, alternative truths and what constitutes factual statements, inaccurate ones or outright lies; but suffice it to say that most people can recognize the difference between truth and falsity, just as people know the difference between day and night even if there are shades of twilight and dawn.

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 worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of his or her Federal or Postal job, the distinction between truth and falsity is represented by the stark reality of the medical condition itself, and may often determine the course of future actions yet to be contemplated.

The truth:  The medical condition is beginning to impact my ability to perform my job duties at work.  The falsity:  If I just ignore everything, it will all just go away and I will wake up from a bad dream.  And the subtle distinctions like the dawn of light or the quietude of twilight: Federal Disability Retirement is not something that I want to choose, but it is the best option available for my situation.

Sometimes, it is not the stark choice between Truth and Falsity that matters, but the option taken must take into account the contextual reality of what is —that is, if you can even know these days what the definition of “is” is.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal & Federal Employee Disability Retirement: The festering mistake

There are mistakes; then, there is the compounding one where we fail to identify X for what it is, and continue to make excuses by deflecting with Y, excusing with Z or replacing it with XX.  This is called the “festering mistake” – that mistake which, like a wound that could easily have been attended to, is allowed to become infected, then spread, then become so serious as to require further and drastic means to save a life.

Think about it: it may have begun with a minor cut; it is dismissed and ignored; and from there it can develop into a spreading infection, sepsis, incurable and incalculable damage.  That is what often results from ignoring a mistake; failing to recognize the mistake and attending to it; refusing to identify the mistake and attend to the symptoms; avoiding the direct confrontation and culpability of it with unintended consequences of greater reverberations beyond that which was originally the core of it.

We all make mistakes; it is the festering mistake that leaves us devastated – not only for the mistake itself and the growing complexity of trying to make up for lost time in failing to attend to the mistake itself, but further, for the failure of identification.  Just as the seat of wisdom is the recognition of one’s own ignorance, so the engine of success is the identification of mistakes early on.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are attempting 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 key to a successful outcome – no matter how long the process, and regardless of the difficulties to be faced – is to recognize the mistakes potentially there to be made, identify the pitfalls to be avoided, and realize that you cannot put “blinders” on OPM once they have seen that which was neither necessary nor any of their business to review or entertain, and to never allow a festering mistake to occur in the first place.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Fairytales, mythologies and lies

They all constitute the arena of “make-believe”.  Yet, we excuse the first, ignore the second, and feel guilt and shame for embracing the third – or, at least some of us, do.  Of fairytales, we share in the delight of passing on such tall tales of wonderlands and Eskimo nights full of shooting stars and talking Polar Bears; of mythologies, we recognize the need for lost civilizations to have embraced a means of explaining, but consider such trifles to be beyond the sophistication of modernity, and arrogantly dismiss such dusty irrelevancies as mere fodder for a fairytale told:  Once upon a time, Man lived in ignorance and could not comprehend the complexities of science, Darwinism and the unseen world of genetic engineering by happenstance of gravitational alliances in planetary designs of explainable phenomena; but we know better, now.  But of lies, the second is more akin; the first is excusable as an exception to the rule, especially when the innocence of childhood smiles warms the hearts of parental yearnings.

Rage, effrontery, a sense of betrayal, and a violation of integrity’s core; these become bundled up and spat out into the cauldron of people’s tolerance for acceptable behavior, and from an early age, we instill in children the parallel universes encompassing Fairytales, Mythologies and Lies without an inkling of self-contradiction.  And, again, of the middle one, we tolerate as mere poppycock by arrogance of modernity, in order to explain how our forefathers could tolerate that which we reflect in the first but not the third.  And of the third, we contend that we can abandon and banish the foundation of a Commandment, while preserving the moral explication justifying the mandate of Truthfulness, and so we embrace the linguistic gymnasts provided by forgotten giants of Philosophy’s past, like Kant’s maxims of universalization of principles otherwise untethered by metaphysical concerns, or even of John Stuart Mill’s failed Utilitarianism.

Then, we allow for exceptions – such as those hypotheticals where the black boots of horror’s past that knock on doors in the middle of the night and inquire as to hidden racial divides in the attic of one’s abode, but where lies and denials are justified in the greater cause of a choice between words and existence in the face of reality, Being and human cruelty.  For the person who must live daily within the consequences of what elitists and ivory-towered cocoons revive, the truth is that there never was a problem for most of us, between fairytales, mythologies and lies.  The first was for children to enjoy and learn from the lessons of innocence; the second, for adults to study in order to understand the origins of our being; and of the third, we recognize as the soul’s defect in Man.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must contend with a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal position, the identification between the tripartite elements become quickly clear:  Fairytales are the promises made by the Federal agency and the U.S. Postal Service; Mythologies are the rules broken by the Federal agency and the U.S. Postal Service, but which are pointed to so as to create an impression of integrity; and lies are those statements made and exposed, but denied daily by the Federal agency and the U.S. Postal Service.  In the end, preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is one way of extricating one’s self from such fairytales, mythologies, and lies daily told.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement: Obligation through Declaration

It is through the vehicle of the declarative statement that obligations are created.  Thus, when one states:  “I promise…”; “I will…”; “You can count on me…”; and other similar declarations of intent, then the connection between the speaker and the one to whom it is stated, is immediately created, such that a binding sense of mandatory indebtedness is established.

In many ways, then, it is through the spoken word, arranged in a pre-established sequence of grammatical form, which constitutes something beyond a mere folly of ideas, but binds an obligation of intentionality.

That is why talking “about” something is often the first step towards doing it.  Of course, words alone can result in a continuum of inaction, and the more words which are spoken by an individual, without any follow-up as a consequence, can undermine the very force of those initial linguistic hints, until the day comes when those around simply mutter, “He’s been saying that for years…”

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents him or her from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties of the Federal or Postal Service job, the consideration for filing for Federal Disability Retirement compensation will normally take those initial, communicative steps of inquiry:  first, with one’s family; next, with some research and thought; and further, some outreach to someone who has knowledge about the process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS.

Mere talking and gathering of information does not create an obligation of an irreversible nature; but when one moves from declarative statements devoid of future contingency (“I plan on filing…”) to one of present involvement of intent (“I am in the process of…”), then the step from mere words to activity of production has been established, and the Federal employee is then well on his/her way towards securing one’s future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal & Federal Disability: The Depersonalized World, Sans the Sacred

It is the personal encounter, the direct engagement, that many seek to actualize in hopes of fulfillment.  “If only I could speak to the person”; “If you knew the real me”; and, indeed, it is that depersonalized universe which undermines and tempers.  Somehow, if we are merely one among many, like the little girl in the red dress in Schindler’s List, the singularity of the living entity shouts at us for relevance, significance, and a chance to distinguish.  It is in the personalization of the deep chasm reaching down from the inertia of life, from which the sacred emerges.

There is the daily monotony; the repetition of costs, conversations and couples coexisting; and then suddenly an idea conflicts, an encounter entangles, and life itself takes on a meaningful menagerie of sounds and magnified explosions of signification.  Sans the sacred, the inertia of living would prevail.  That is the true crime of a bureaucracy, and the administrative process which life imposes upon us.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it is the sudden clash and inevitable tension between the depersonalized and faceless bureaucracy which one must face and submit one’s Federal Disability Retirement application to, and the sacredness of the most personal information being forwarded, which gives magnified rise to the anxiety of life.

That is the conundrum and anomaly; to formulate the most personal of narratives involving one’s medical condition and its impact upon one’s professional and personal life, and then to have the depersonalized experience of a faceless bureaucrat make a decision on one’s life without ever a direct encounter or face-to-face plea of persuasion.  And the form which one must pour out such sacred information upon — SF 3112A, the “Applicant’s Statement of Disability” — reflects the depersonalized character of the entire administrative process.

In the end, however, one must always keep in mind the goal of the endeavor.  Achievement is to reach and fulfill the intended goal.  Filing for Disability Retirement benefits through OPM must by necessity involve the avenue of a faceless bureaucracy.

To reach the destination of purposive intent, the Federal and Postal employee must recognize that it is not the depersonalized world which will finally define one’s existence, but the recognition that a universe sans the sacred will manifest its humanity only through small steps of personal encounters, and that can be accomplished when once the Federal or Postal employee gets beyond the present circumstance, obtains Federal OPM Disability Retirement benefits, and moves forward with life into another vocation, another stage of life, and a further contact with the sacred nature of one’s essence.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire