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.

 

FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Seeking Reason

Some would argue that the search itself is an abject lesson in absurdity.  On that front, perhaps there would be agreement between Russell and Camus.

The former — that giant in developing and advancing symbolic logic along with Whitehead (although, the story goes that Bertrand Russell had to prod Whitehead repeatedly and with annoying insistence from long periods of slumber and inactivity to work on the 3-Volume Principia Mathematica — but likely such a rumor was spread by the mischievous Russell himself) — would no doubt have questioned the wisdom of seeking reason after Wittgenstein essentially destroyed the foundations of philosophy and belittled Russell in the process.

The latter — Camus — believed that the universe itself and the teleology of humankind’s constant obsession with happiness, would have resulted in his uproarious laughter at the thought that men seek reason.  And perhaps they are both right.  Looking at the present epoch of modernity, can we honestly seek reason?  The war in Ukraine; the dysfunction in government in this country; the pandemic; the rise of inflation not seen for decades; the disparity of wealth as never before; the severity of pollution everywhere — is seeking reason a viable endeavor?

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, “seeking reason” is often twofold: 1. Trying to find a reason NOT to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, because to do so is to admit to one’s own medical conditions, and 2. Trying to find a reason why you had to be the one chosen to suffer such a medical condition that has become career-ending.

Unfortunately, sometimes “reason” is neither enough nor discoverable.  Always remember that “reason” is an artificial construct of human beings, and it is reason enough to suffer from a medical condition, without seeking reason as to the “why” of it.

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.

 

FERS Medical Retirement Legal Representation: Advice

Advice is always a sensitive issue; when we sincerely seek it, it can be of extraordinary value; but when it comes out way without solicitation, the burden of doing something we wish to ignore or cast aside can lead to resentment and a fissure erupting in an otherwise close relationship.

It is often given freely but received reluctantly; and when it is good for us, we take it like the cod-liver oil we swallowed as children — acting as if it had a negative impact upon us, but privately cherishing the fact that someone cared enough to take the time to dispense it.  It is a difficult moment to come to a recognition that a need has arisen, or that a change has necessitated or prompted a different course of action.

We live with the unrealistic paradigm of individualism and self-reliance, and yet our bodies cannot last forever, our minds unable to resist the daily stresses and threads of pressure upon a withering psyche.

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, contact a FERS Disability Lawyer for advice.  It might not be the answer you are seeking, but it is always important to know what questions need to be asked.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

OPM Lawyers Strategy: What If My OPM Disability Claim Is Denied?

Doubting can become infectious.  Once the confidence wanes, the seeds of doubt have been planted; once the seeds begin to sprout, further fears of shaken self-confidence begin to appear, and the shattering of a once-certain sense of calm begins to pervade insidiously within the soul of a questioning mind.

A denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in a Federal Disability Retirement case is intended to do exactly that: Doubt the strength of your case.  It may quote directly from the office notes of your medical providers, and even selectively extrapolate statements that you once thought were “supportive” of your case, and the OPM “Medical Specialist” will yet conclude: “This does not meet the eligibility standards for Federal Disability Retirement, and it is insufficient and lacks objective and subjective evidence.  Therefore, you have not proven your case.”

Perhaps you believe you have given your “best shot”, and even with that, OPM has stated in rendering its denial that you do not meet the criteria to be eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  You have started down the pathway of “doubts”, and your confidence has been shaken.

The natural reaction?  Why even request reconsideration?

Of course, that is precisely what OPM wants you to think — that your Federal Disability Retirement case is so “weak” and unsubstantiated that you might as well give up and not pursue this, anymore.  Do NOT get trapped and deceived by the denial letter of OPM; the intent is to sow the seeds of doubt, so that a certain percentage of cases will simply give up without filing for Reconsideration of the OPM Denial Letter.

Time is of the essence in filing a Request for Reconsideration in every denial issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and while the selective extrapolation of evidence submitted is intended to sow those seeds of doubt, one must forge forward with confidence in the same manner that originally prompted the Federal or Postal employee into preparing and submitting the OPM Disability Retirement application in the first place: that one’s medical condition prevents one from continuing in the line of one’s chosen career, and thus does one become eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

It is simply a matter of proving it, and consulting with an attorney who specializes in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS is the next step in reinstating that self-confidence and setting aside the seeds of doubt that OPM has so deviously sown.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Claims: Being another

When you read that some actor, writer, politician or commentator (dare we ask why, in a single sentence, all of them have been lumped side by side) says X or does Y, we often allow our own ego as the “one-upsmanship” to overtake us, and we imagine that, if we were there, we would have said “XX” instead of “X”, or done “YY” instead of the mere “Y”.

At the moment, though we rarely recognize the egocentric reality of what we are doing, we actually “become” that actor, that writer, that politician or that commentator, and assume the role and identity of the person we have replaced in our mind’s eye.  Insanity, of course, comes about when a further step is taken — of believing not what we “would” have done or said, but incontrovertibly becoming that someone whom we are not.

The quantity of time expended within the insularity of our lives is astounding; and the personal — albeit creative and imaginative — excursions into another type of virtual reality consumes a greater part of each day, every hour and multiple minutes of our disjointed lives.  Perhaps this occurs in a quick flash of a stream of passing thoughts; or a long, enduring daydream that recurs through the day, the week, and over a month’s time; but of whatever duration, being another is something that we all do, and always at the expense one’s own ego and those who are close to us.

Being another also occurs in hopeful encounters with our own circumstances.  We imagine that we are ourselves, but also another who is simultaneously identical and yet different.  That is what a medical condition does — it divides the reality of who we are today from the memory of who we were yesterday, and further projects a person of what will become of us in the future, near or far.  Often, emotions become entangled in the images of who we are, and so regret pervades the past, anxiety overwhelms the present, and fear pursues the future.

Medical conditions tend to inject a factor that we have no control over, and it is that loss of control, combined with who we see ourselves as, and who we would rather be or become, that presents a dilemma: As circumstances change, can we continue to remain who we are and allow for being another — the “other” being the person who we once were — to continue as if such changes of circumstances never occurred?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the medical condition has “changed” a person to the extent that he or she is now “another” — someone not quite dissimilar to yesterday’s you but also not identical to today’s yesterday of the person we just met — because of circumstances beyond one’s control, it may be time to do that which only another in a different time and distinguishing context may have contemplated: 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 reality is that we are never the same as who we were yesterday, and last year’s child of imaginative “being another” has grown into the “other” that was once imagined.

In the end, the essence of who we are will not have changed because of a medical condition, and what we do in life beyond filing for and obtaining a Federal Disability Retirement is more important than feeling self-pity for not having fulfilled one’s desire for being another, who was yesterday’s another in a different role from today’s another or tomorrow’s another.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Owning a landline

It is perhaps the single telling factor of a generational divide; if you own a landline, it is likely you are not a millennial.  Or from the generation just before, or even the one before that.  You are probably from the generation sometime within the timeframe of “just after” the Korean War and around the end of the Vietnam War.  It is the remembrance of unreliable “bag” phones and cellular connections that barely became audible; but more than that, it is the evidence of who one is based upon the generational divide that naturally occurs between sets of population growths.

Can there be similarity of morals, ethics and behavioral patterns merely because one is born into a designated generation, as opposed to other such assignations of identifiable features?  Is it really true that one generation has a characteristic trait that is identifiable, recognizable and with imprints that define it with clarity of traits?  Are there “lazy” generations, “psychotic” ones and those that are mere sheep in a fold of followers?  Does owning a landline betray such a characteristic, anymore than being a hard worker, a person who always attends to one’s responsibilities and never turns away from obligations ensconced in the conscience of one’s being?

Yet, at some point, we all become adults, make decisions separate and apart from a “generational identifier”, and go on to become responsible for the pathways taken, the decisions undertaken and the consequences wrought.  Can it be so difficult to abandon a landline, to cancel it, to unplug it?  Or is it the imprint of a generation, so steeped in regularity and reliance that the youthful days of one’s generation cannot ever be completely severed and forgotten?

Owning a landline is like the Federal or Postal employee who comes from a generation where filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is almost unthinkable.  It is that characteristic trait that you have to continue working, striving, contributing and making it into work “no matter what”.

Yet, the silliness of such a thought process is about the same as paying for a landline despite the fact that you no longer use it, never rings and sits in a corner silently except for the occasional caller who happened to ring up the wrong number and got a hold of another occasional individual who, upon picking up the receiver, realizes that it feels somewhat strange not to be using one’s cellphone as opposed to this “thing” that you have to put back into the cradle of a time long forgotten.

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, the point always is not to allow for some silly notion of a generational identifier to keep the Federal or Postal employee from doing that which must be done for the sake of a higher calling: One’s Health.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement: The noisy neighborhood

Whether used as a noun or a verb, the second grammatical appendage can have multiple meanings: as a stick of lumber; as an activity placing information, warning, directional declarative or similar linguistic affirmations; and the combination of the two words can be read only within a greater contextual enlightenment depending upon what meaning is meant to be conveyed or how the inflection and accent is emphasized.

As a mere stick of lumber, it is a rather boring concept, even when attached to the first word, “sign”, precisely because the focus is upon the “post”, and so the emphasis goes directly to the sturdy piece of wood and not to the interests of the information posted.  If, on the other hand, one means to connote a different linguistic avenue – of different and varying posting of signs, then our interest is tweaked because we are immediately drawn into the various and wider universe of warnings, directions, admonishments and disseminated information useful to everyday living.

Sign posts are meant to guide, warn, betray or inform; and between the spectrum of the duality of linguistic translations, there is a natural reflection to life’s everyday humdrum itself.  For, like the analogy between information posted or merely a stick of lumber, living life is likened to a wide spectrum of activities mirroring boredom and repetitive monotony, and those instances where sudden tumult and excitement makes for an interesting day.

Being healthy can be viewed as a form of boredom; it is like the person focusing upon the stick of lumber, even if there are signs posting some warnings.  And, correlatively, when sickness and debilitating medical conditions occur, the viewpoint and perspective alters dramatically, such that the monotony of the piece of wood is now replaced with the blare of the warning, admonishment and legal declaratives, and life becomes a tumult, not merely a lapping wave but a tsunami of devastating impact.

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 the positional duties of the Federal or Postal employee’s job, the alteration of the perspective – whether seen as a “eureka” moment, a modified weltanschauung, or some reflective recognition of changed circumstances – the point is to shift the focus from the stick of lumber to the sign post itself: the job, the harassment, the constant antagonism and acrimony in the workplace – these are all the stick of lumber; one’s own medical condition, dealing with the doctors, the deterioration of one’s physical, emotional and mental capacity – these are the “signs”.

What we focus upon will determine the course of one’s future; and preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is the combination of both words as a compound concept: of recognizing the sign posts, and dealing with it accordingly.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS Disability Retirement Attorney

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Happiness Goal

Whether human happiness is the goal to strive for, or as a byproduct to savor in those moments of sudden revelation, is for each individual to ascertain and abide by.  One can study the sages and philosophers and realize that there is a distinction to be made between joy and happiness, of contentment and satisfaction, and from a sense of peace as opposed to the turmoil of anxious foreboding.

Life is full of moments; but is it for those moments we live, or do such ethereal segments compel us to greater achievements?  From Aristotle’s Eudaemonism to Confucius’ focus upon maintaining the balance between family and normative behavior, or the extreme nihilism of Nietzsche and the existentialist’s embrace of the absurd, the modern approach has been to ensconce happiness as the principle of highest regard.  But life has a way of interrupting every neat packaging of human endeavor.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, whether of physical pain, the chronicity of progressive deterioration, or the overwhelming psychiatric conditions which impact mental acuity, cognition, with symptoms of depression, anxiety, panic attacks, etc., the desire for the “happiness principle” is sometimes merely to have a day without the symptoms of one’s medical condition.

Filing for Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal workers is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, can be an intermediate goal, and not an “ultimate” one.  For, in the end, if the Federal or Postal employee can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, the loss of job satisfaction will be exponentially heightened either by the agency (through disciplinary procedures or termination of employment) or by one’s self (through frustration of purpose, increasing recognition and acknowledgment of one’s inability and incapacity, etc.).

In the end, the “happiness goal” is often defined by who controls what; and in taking the first steps toward preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, one asserts control over one’s present and future endeavors, and fights against the winds of time and mortality by controlling the undetermined destiny of a period of life yet to be deciphered in this complex world of mysteries wrapped in a chasm of conundrums.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement: Anonymity of the Routine

Most people prefer anonymity; although, in more recent years, the hunt for one’s five minutes of fame by “hook or by crook”, whether to impose, intrude, push through, etc., and wave in front of a camera, or to perform some demeaning act to attract a byline in the Guinness Book of Records, has become a prevalence beyond mere happenstance exception.  Perhaps it is the age of Youtube, of selfie images and the need to see one’s portrait, name or reference reflected in the public domain, which belies the common quest for the mundane.

There was once upon a time when discretion and the desire for privacy pervaded; now, the anonymity of the routine is mere boredom, and the eternal quest for admiration, recognition, even ignoble acknowledgment, is preferable and actively sought.

For bureaucratic purposes, however, attempting to define by deliberate exceptionality, can be a two-edged sword.  For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, of course one wants to submit an OPM Disability application which “stands out” beyond the mere routine.  But that depends upon how one characterizes and defines that which is “routine”.

Medical conditions are unique by inherent definitional standards; and to “stand out” can take on multiple connotations. Certainly, excellence of preparation and formulation should be the overarching standard in the compilation and presentation of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application, submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.   But if by “being out of the mainstream”, one attempts to bring in irrelevant or immaterial facts or allegations which shock or otherwise disrupt merely for the sake of “standing out”, then the preferable methodology is to remain with the anonymity of the routine.

Federal Disability Retirement is a compensatory benefit which must be proven with medical facts, criteria-based argumentation, and a solid compendium of legal bridges established through coherence of information.

While the rest of the world may seek attention and approval, for the Federal or Postal employee preparing to submit an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through OPM, it is the anonymity of the routine, prepared through excellence of information and cogency of argumentation, which is preferable to the publicity stunts of last year’s forgotten tirades.

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