Federal Employee’s Medical Retirement Programs: Propriety of Sequence

Propriety is not a concept which is much discussed, anymore.  That which is socially or morally “proper” has been discarded, precisely because convention is no longer accepted as a standard to follow.  But when the consistent pursuance of the opposite of X becomes the acceptable standard, does it not then become the convention itself?

Further, some levels of propriety follow upon the thoughtful order of things, and are imposed not because they are artificial societal creations mandated through a history of traditions; rather, it is so because of common sense.  For example, while having a urinal right beside each table in a restaurant may be the most naturally convenient place for utilitarian purposes, the propriety of such placement defies the convention of modesty and privacy concerns; and so it goes.

Sequential propriety is often the best example of logically-imposed events, and failing to follow the linear approach may have unforeseen consequences erupting with problems down the road.  Thus, teaching a child to stop, look, listen — then to cross the road, is both logical, of utility, and linear, with a rational foundation for following upon the sequence of actions.

For Federal and Postal employees contemplating the preparation of a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, the propriety of sequential formulation of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application is important before proceeding. When should the Federal or Postal employee’s Statement of Disability be prepared? When should the Supervisor be approached to complete the Supervisor’s Statement? What should be the sequence and priority of listing of the medical conditions which make up the core of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application?

Sequence of propriety is often a combination of naturally-imposed events, as well as logically sound determinations.  Throwing out convention is fine for the unthinking; but there have been many a thoughtless child who, like the symbolism in the well-known story of Holden Caulfield, comes too near the edge of a cliff in a field of rye to deserve comfort of thought and actions.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Directing the Cinematic Chaos of Life

We tend to believe that life must travel along a linear path of consistent activity.  Perhaps such a belief system is derived from the Western philosophical tradition of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, which first proposed the conceptual universe of things moving from states of potentiality to actuality, and where the unmoved mover attracted all physical substances to its presence.

But life rarely unfolds as planned; and instead, a retrospective view of most lives reveals one of missteps, pauses, turns of trepidation and wrong and directionless travels to dead ends and strange neighborhoods.

We like sitting and watching movies and shows which are well-directed, with a thematic coherence and a nicely packaged beginning, middle and end. But what of our own lives? Who directs it, and what thematic presence dominates the cogency of one’s own existence? The difference between such fictional production and “real life”, of course, is that the former is created through artificial control of what happens and who enters each scene; in the latter, there can never be total control, as interaction with a chaotic and vibrant world cannot ultimately be refuted.

We try, of course, by remaining within the cocoons of our own making; by following a well-established daily routine, and never diverging from the treadmill of daily living. But then, those unexpected and unwanted anomalies of life intrude, such as a medical condition.

For Federal and Postal employees who find that a medical condition impacts the ability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s livelihood, the option of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits will often be the only alternative left in order to remain on some semblance of a coherent, linear path of life.  It is a benefit accorded to all Federal and Postal employees, whether under FERS or CSRS, and must ultimately be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

To be a movie director is one thing; the more important role is to have some authority in directing one’s own life, and that is by far the more difficult job in maintaining a thematic cogency in this universal chasm of chaos.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Coordinating the Elements of Success

Coordination is something taken for granted; it is only when there is a visible lack of coordination that one comes to appreciate that which has been taken for granted.  Thus, when a disjointed presentation is viewed; a play or a movie without a coherent theme; an unskilled person attempting a skill-based sport; a person trying to “wing it” when such an endeavor cannot be accomplished without prior practice and perseverance:  it is the bad play which brings to the fore the importance of coordination.

Thus, for the Federal and Postal Worker who is contemplating filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is the disjointed application, the one without a coherent structure or lacking of the necessary connections between the primary three (3) elements:  the law, the personal narrative, and the medical foundation; that is when a Federal Disability Retirement application is in trouble at the outset.

Coordinating the necessary elements will greatly enhance the chances of a successful Federal Disability Retirement application.  It is when there is a lack of such coordination that the inherent inconsistencies and lack of evidentiary substantiveness will become apparent; sort of like the minor leaguer who tries to reenact the play of a major league type, only to find that it isn’t quite the same.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement Attorney’s blog: The Importance of Coordination

Logic and coordination do not necessarily occur naturally.  The fact that a systematic and logical sequence of events would present themselves in a coordinated manner, does not imply that such coordination was pre-planned.  Rather, it is normally the case that, because X occurs in a logically sequential manner, that therefore a semblance of coordination is implied.  

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Employee Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is important to coordinate the various standard government forms — or, at least, the information which is provided in completing such forms.  

There are those forms which the Federal or Postal employee has no direct control over — i.e., the Supervisor’s Statement and the Agency’s Efforts for Reassignment and Accommodation (SF 3112B and SF 3112D).  Then, there are the “superfluous” forms, which merely constitute a checklist of information (e.g., SF 3112E).  But those forms which the Federal or Postal employee are directly responsible for — SF 3107 & Schedules A, B & C for FERS employees; SF 2801 and Schedules A, B & C for CSRS employees; and SF 3112A for both FERS & CSRS employees — should be coordinated with medical reports and records, and any additional documentary support which may be submitted.  

The analyzing agency (in this case, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management) should never be able to use a case against itself by finding inherent contradictions to attack itself.  As such, coordination should — unlike that found in “nature” — be artificially imposed within the logical sequencing of submissions in a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Words, Actions and Comparative Analysis in Federal Disability Retirement

The test of sincerity is determined by the actions which follow upon words.  Words themselves are merely malleable vehicles, subject to linguistic gymnastics, and can have interpretive chameleon-like characteristics.  Thus, a declarative statement issued by an individual, in the form of, “I will take care of it!” seemingly solves a problem — immediately, by the mere force of the statement, and in the very usage of the words chosen.

Indeed, in this world of Facebook, websites and technology-based apparatus of endless statements without the need to act, but merely to speak it; where words constitute the substance of an entity; and where a person can appear to be X merely by declaring X; a comparative analysis of sincerity is necessary.  It is ultimately the action which follows, which determines the sincerity of the words stated.

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 that the documentary evidence provided to OPM in support of the Federal Disability Retirement application, reveals a comparative consistency with the Applicant’s Statement of Disability as declaratively issued in response to Standard Form 3112A.  For, that is the primary basis of a denial by the case worker at OPM in evaluating and reviewing a Federal Disability Retirement application — by comparing the statements made, and the medical reports, records, office notes, etc., which are provided.  That is why merely having the doctor send the records to one’s Agency, then forwarded to OPM, without first having an opportunity to see what is being sent, is tantamount to malpractice.

Words and actions — the test of sincerity, and the comparative basis for an approval in a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Inconsistencies and the Perfect Case

Perhaps there will never be the “perfect” case in a FERS Disability Retirement application, and one should not expect to find one.  There are “near-perfections” and ones which cannot possibly be denied by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  But it is the imperfect ones — the ones which might be consider tenuous at best, but which are nevertheless approved, which provide greater lessons in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Further, denial letters issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management are instructive for future events and cases, precisely because they indicate the focus, in any particular context or time, of the central and essential concerns expressed by OPM.  Inconsistencies are often what is reviewed and scrutinized most closely — between what the doctor asserts in conclusory fashion, in a medical narrative report, as opposed to the daily office and treatment notes; between one’s statement of disability and what the Supervisor observes; between what the applicant for Federal Disability Retirement benefits states, and what the doctor annotates.

Granted, much of it is selectively chosen with a biased and slanted perspective — as if the Caseworker at OPM had already decided to issue a denial.  Further, OPM makes unfounded assertions concerning the applicable standard of law all the time, which undermines the very basis of any denial, and puts into question the credibility of the reasons given in a denial letter.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as the “perfect” case; as life provides for inconsistencies and lack of continuum, so a Federal Disability Retirement application often reflects the imperfection of life.  Unfortunately, OPM doesn’t have such a philosophical outlook on such matters, and we must deal with it accordingly.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Left and Right Hands

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, part of the successful process of preparation and formulation is the ability to coordinate everything for the sake of consistency.  Indeed, “consistency” — or the lack thereof — is precisely the issue which often defeats a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Whether it is the inconsistency of a medical report submitted and the office/doctors’ notes attached; whether how the Agency views the employee and what the Federal or Postal employee claims as to one’s ability or inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job; or at a macro-level, a settlement agreement between the Agency and the Federal employee to determine the nature of a removal or resignation, and how cooperatively the Agency will complete SF 3112B and SF 3112D.

Such inconsistencies are the “fodder” of a denial for the Office of Personnel Management, who takes great effort in comparatively analyzing all aspects of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Further, if the medical conditions noted on one’s Applicant’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A) are not supported by the medical documentation attached, or perhaps the treating doctor focuses upon medical conditions X & Y while the applicant/patient thinks it is C & D, such internal incompatibilities can impact the outcome of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: The Non-Existence of Life’s Linear Line

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 often a valid concern that the Case Worker at the Office of Personnel Management will review a Federal Disability Retirement application for internal “consistency” of the application.  

By “consistency” is meant the comparative analysis and evaluation of the Applicant’s Statement of Disability as described and narrated on SF 3112A and its continuation attachment, and the medical records and reports and the substantive content of what the treating medical providers are stating.  

Such comparison and comparative analysis may involve the level and extent of treatment; whether there are any notations concerning non-compliance with medication regimens; whether the findings of clinical examinations may contradict the ultimate conclusions of the treating doctors, etc.  

The unfortunate part of such an approach is that life normally does not travel in such a consistent, linear line of events.  On some days when a patient visits the doctor, it may well be that he or she is in the “best health” of one’s slice of life, and it may be reflected as such in the mental status examination, or in the physical examination given by the doctor.  Or, conversely, on any particular day, the treating doctor may not be as “aware” or attentive to the patient, and may simply mechanically jot down notes without putting much thought into it.  Whatever the case, such linear consistency rarely reflects the reality of life.  

To counter such non-existence of the linear line of expectation, it is often a good idea to provide, if possible, a history of the medical condition, treatment regimens and modalities, in order to show that a day’s slice of life is not reflective of the greater medical history one has suffered from, and is currently suffering from.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: A Distinction to Be Made

Lawyers are taught — whether at Law School, through observation as a young associate or “apprentice” under the wings of a seasoned attorney — to ask questions in a persistent, methodological manner.  Whether in “direct examination” or “cross examination”, the question asked is meant to be goal-oriented.

We often make the mistake, however, in concluding that the question asked constitutes something more than a question — that it contains some substantive value, intrinsic in the very intonation and deliverance of the question itself.  The question asked, must be distinguished from the answer given.  Thus, the mere fact that a question is asked, does not in and of itself contain any relevant evidence or substantive import.  It is in the answer given which must determine the content and context of relevance.

In a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, applied through one’s agency and ultimately submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, multiple and varied questions will be posed, indicated and conveyed to the Federal or Postal employee who is filing for the Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  Such questions must be answered — and answered truthfully.  The questions themselves, however — whether posed in the Standard Forms which must be completed (SF 3107 & SF 3112 series for the FERS employee; SF 2801 and SF 3112 series for the CSRS employee); or in correspondence form from the Agency or the Office of Personnel Management; or by the Administrative Judge or the OPM Representative at an MSPB Hearing — should have a stream of consistency throughout the process.

This is normally a simple matter — but always remember that “truth” is distinguishable from “consistency”; and it is often the latter which creates some doubt as to the former.  Unfortunately, life is very rarely consistent. That is why a coordination and comprehensive outlook upon the entire administrative process, from beginning to end, must always be kept in mind.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government employees: Consistency

Consistency, in addition to coherence, is an important element which must always be recognized and reviewed in filing an application for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS.  Coherence of an application has to do with the element of “fitting all the pieces” together so that everything coheres in a rational, logical, and often sequential manner.  Coherence often has more to do with form, than with substance.  Consistency has to do with the substantive issues — the actually claims and statements made by a doctor; the opinions rendered in relation to the knowledge obtained; and whether everything “agrees” with everything else, in the very substance of the statements and claims made.

Inconsistencies are precisely what the Office of Personnel Management aggressively searches for, in determining the validity of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  Coherence can often be ignored; indeed, in many Federal Disability Retirement applications filed without an OPM Disability Attorney at the First Stage of the process, I have often found that, when it has been denied and people come to me at the Second, Reconsideration Stage, that the application prepared by the applicant is almost entirely incoherent.

The narrative prepared is often illogical; the doctor’s report often takes a “shotgun” approach, without the coherence of a methodology of addressing the essential issues which OPM is looking for.  Either by form or by substance, it is always better to have problems with form, rather than substance.  But if you ask me, it would be “best” (good, better, best) if both form and substance are carefully prepared — meaning, that a Federal Disability Retirement application is both coherent and consistent.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire