CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Insipience

The thread of differentiation and conceptual distinction can be based upon a mere sliver.  In practical life, pausing a moment because a person forgot his or her keys, can result in avoiding a chain of events terminating in causal calamities, merely because the time differentiation as a consequence of the slight delay allows for time to alter the historical ripples of cause and effect.

Words and conceptual distinctions can have similar minutiae of differentiations.  Linguistic gymnastics and elasticity aside, the word “insipience” conveys a meaning of being foolish and lacking of wisdom.  Changing a single consonant, and instead transforming the word into “incipience”, suddenly alters the concept into one encompassing origination and beginning stages.  Upon closer inspection, however, such a singular change of a consonant resulting in a radical alteration of meaning explodes with a recognition that the two are closely related: That which is in its beginning stages is often lacking of wisdom, precisely because little or no thought or reflection has been allowed.

That is precisely why the beginning stage of a process is so important — because it lays the foundation for all that follows. For Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s capacity to perform the essential elements of one’s job, the importance of beginning the sequential procedure of formulating an effective Federal Disability Retirement application cannot be overly stressed.

Federal Disability Retirement is a submission which is reviewed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS.  As such, the reviewing process is accomplished be an agency separate and distinct (in most cases) from the one the Federal or Postal employee is employed by.  The early stages of formulation and preparation in a Federal Disability Retirement application will provide the necessary and important foundation for the successful outcome of a Federal Disability Retirement case.

It is thus the incipience of formulating and preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, which will determine whether or not the outcome will be insipient, or not.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Development

Aristotle speaks often in terms of the spectrum between potentialities and actualization, revealing the philosophical concerns surrounding man’s ability to discern reality from appearances, scientific certitude as distinguished from mere opinions; and, in the end, the capacity to bifurcate truth from falsity. As Pre-Socratic philosophy brought out the problems of an ever-changing world, with Heraclitus and Parmenides as two classic examples of the focus of inquiry, so the underlying and common thread remains even with us today: How, in an ever-changing universe, do we attain some semblance of static certainty?

Anxiety and stress during the development or waiting periods.

Medical conditions tend to bring to the fore a sudden change which is not merely problematic, but impacting upon all sectors and areas of one’s life. The quietude of the normal and mundane is suddenly turned upside down; that which we relied upon, and for which we worked so hard to achieve, are all suddenly in a state of disarray and disruption.

As certainty is the harbinger of security, so constant flux remains the loosened bolt which potentially unhinges such security. That is why, for Federal and Postal employees who are in the “development” stage of either preparing, formulating or in the process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS or, in the long and arduous “waiting” stage in anticipation of a decision to be rendered by OPM, a constant sense of anxiety and angst prevails, precisely because the lack of certitude in bringing about stability is presently ever-pervasive in one’s thoughts. Perspectives are important in the quest for truth.

Both Plato and Aristotle recognized the subjective factor of perceptual idiosyncrasies amongst species.  Development of a case for Federal and Postal Workers who are filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, will continue to remain in a state of flux, uncertainty, and insecurity. And like the metaphorical river into which Heraclitus walks, revealing the constancy of change and stream of flux, until a decision is rendered by OPM, life remains a metaphor for development into the unknown.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Trying to Act “As If”…

One can act as if a mistake was not made; the problem exists, however, and continues to impact, with the assumption that X did happen, despite one’s best attempts at ignoring the occurrence.

Thus, when the question is posed to the undersigned attorney whether it would be “okay” to try and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS or CSRS, from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, on one’s own, and if it is denied, to then seek the assistance of an attorney, the short answer is, “Of course”.  The silent “but” and qualifier is never necessarily posed or queried.

The caveat is a simple one:  While most mistakes are correctable, there is one thing which cannot be done:  one cannot put blinders on OPM for what they have already received and reviewed.  We cannot play “as if” OPM did not review that specific document which implied a situational disability; or the one which characterized a medical condition as one which “waxes and wanes“; or referred to certain elements in terms of possibilities and potentialities; and other such equivocating conceptual paradigms.

The world of OPM, Medical Disability Retirement, Federal employment issues, etc., does not allow for the playing of the “as if” game.  Thus, to the question of going at a Federal Disability Retirement application alone, yes, we can play as if the Federal or Postal employee will do everything properly; but when the consequences come back with a negative result, we cannot then play as if we are back at the starting gates of the race; we have already entered into the fray, and must deal with the facts as they now exist.

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

OPM Disability Retirement: Tidbits

The term itself is an interesting one; for, unlike its corollary, it refers to the “choice” or “pleasing” morsel of food, as opposed to “leftovers” or “crumbs”, which imply food which has either been rejected or left behind after the table sitter has made the prime decision.  “Tidbits” in its secondary meaning, of course, implies information; the conceptual applicability has transferred from one within the exclusive context of foods, to include information, facts, statements, etc.

Thus, a tidbit:  In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is important to understand and recognize that, while most mistakes in the preparation and filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application are “correctable” (what an ugly word — both in appearance and in phonetic structure), what one cannot do is to put “blinders” on the eyes of OPM or before an Administrative Judge, once certain information has been submitted to OPM.

Thus, if an individual wants to attempt the First Stage of the administrative process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement on his or her own, without the assistance of an OPM Disability Attorney, thinking that it is an “easy” case, that is all well and good, but while the tools of representation for an attorney include use of the malleability of language, such that “linguistic gymnastics” will be engaged in as the primary sport of the attorney; nevertheless, elasticity of language does have its limits.

Facts, once exposed, can be explained and amended, but the essence of the fact or statement remains in the hands of OPM.  This constitutes and comprises the tidbit of the day; a choice and pleasing morsel?  Perhaps not in consequential substance, but hopefully in terms of informational relevance.  Ah, but to have been offered instead a morsel of apple pie!

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: When a Mistake is Made

Mistakes made in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, are usually correctable, and for a number of reasons:  most mistakes merely require additional clarifications; some “mistakes” are only apparently so, but substantively valid otherwise; and ancillary mistakes of an innocuous nature can reflect the inconsistencies of reality, as opposed to a direct contradiction between two or more persons.

While blinders cannot be placed upon the Case Worker at the Office of Personnel Management once a Federal Disability Retirement application has been submitted, nor does it usually require such drastic measures.

The question to be asked, of course, is whether or not the alleged “mistake” should be addressed, to what extent, and how prominently?  For, the old Shakespearean adage that “thou protesteth too much” can apply in a Federal Disability Retirement application, where too much emphasis upon a particular issue can unduly magnify the issue itself, as opposed to dealing with the issue in a passing manner.

Thus, a statement made in the Applicant’s Statement of Disability, or by a treating doctor, which indicates an undermining of meeting the legal criteria of eligibility in a Federal Disability Retirement application, should probably be addressed.

A direct statement made in a Supervisor’s Statement may or may not be relevant.  Often, such statements are merely opinions meant to undermine a Federal Disability Retirement application, but whether it is worth addressing is a discretionary issue.  The real issue concerning discrepancies or mistakes have to do with who is making it into a loud noise; and the one who makes the loudest noise, is often the one who attracts the greatest attention.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Correcting a Misconception

I will have to write an article entitled, ten mistakes people make in filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.  Or, better yet, perhaps it would be helpful to point out Ten Things Federal and Postal Employees should do to prepare to file for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS.  

In either event, in speaking to multiple individuals over the past couple of days, common and recurring misconceptions have arisen, as they inevitably do, and when such mistaken notions concerning FERS or CSRS Disability Retirement benefits — the process, the benefit itself, the legal criteria for eligibility, etc. — it is necessary to immediately correct the mistake.  

Often, the mistaken idea comes in the form of, “I read somewhere that…”  Now, assuming that the mis-statement was not read on my website or in any of my related articles; and assuming that, even if it were read by something I had written, but had instead been mis-interpreted or somehow taken out of context, the only way in which to clarify or otherwise “correct the record” is to repetitively and incessantly state and restate the correct law concerning the matter.  The point of mistaken conceptual confusion was: That in order to file for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS, one has to be separated from Federal service.  That is simply untrue.  In fact, for obvious economic reasons, most people continue to try and work while awaiting the approval of his or her Federal Disability Retirement application.  Furthermore, if one is separated from Federal Service, he or she has only up to one (1) year to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, from the time of separation.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: Listing the Medical Conditions (Continued…)

If an individual who has filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS later finds, during the process of waiting for a decision or, between the time of an initial denial and during the Reconsideration Stage or an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board — that a previously unlisted medical condition has worsened, can he “add” that medical condition to his Federal Disability Retirement Application?  Can he file an “amended” SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability?  The general answer is, “No”. 

However, one can certainly submit a medical report concerning such “previously-unlisted” medical condition if one can reasonably argue that the previously-unlisted medical condition was in fact listed, right there for everyone (i.e., the Office of Personnel Management) to see.  This issue comes up often enough to be of concern, especially because of the valuable time lost in being forced to “withdraw” an application for OPM Disability Retirement and to start all over again in order to add a “new” medical condition.  To safeguard against such a potential event, it is wise to read through the multiple medical conditions when putting together an OPM Disability Retirement packet, and decide which primary diagnoses to include, and at the same time, to “weave” into the narrative of the description of medical conditions, symptoms and areas of pain which can be reasonably interpreted to encapsulate potentially underlying medical diagnoses which may later become prominent and require greater focal emphasis.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Legal Arguments

Whether and to what extent legal arguments in Federal Disability Retirement cases under FERS or CSRS should be made, should rarely be ventured into by non-lawyers.  The boundaries of legal arguments are naturally constrained for lawyers both internally and externally:  internally, because (hopefully) lawyers are trained to recognize that maintaining the integrity of legal precedents is vital to the process, and externally, because all legal arguments are ultimately subjected to the review of a Judge — in the case of administrative laws governing Federal and Postal Disability Retirement, at the first instance by the Administrative Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board, then potentially at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  When laymen attempt to make legal arguments, there is the added danger of misinterpretation and mis-application of the law, which can further injure the chances of an Applicant filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits to obtain an approval.  And, finally, such chances for success may be further damaged if it needs to come before an Administrative Judge for review.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Reconsiderations

There is a line to be drawn between arguing the law within a boundary of integrity, and arguing the law beyond any reasonable interpretation of the law.  This principle is no less true in administrative law, which is what Federal Disability Retirement law is considered.  I often see non-lawyers make “legal arguments” in an initial application to the Office of Personnel Management, which is then denied, and I then enter my appearance in the case at the Second, Reconsideration Stage of the process.  That is fine — some applicants want to try and save the cost of hiring an attorney, and then decide it is necessary after it has been denied. 

However, as I often explain to clients:  while most mistakes in a Federal Disability Retirement application can be amended or explained, I do not have the magical ability to place “blinders” upon the eyes of the OPM Representative for legal or other arguments or statements made to them at the First Stage of the Process.  While my website and my articles & writings provide a good bit of information on filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, and anyone can use it to his or her advantage, one bit of caution:  Don’t make legal arguments if you don’t fully know what you are talking about.  To do so more often than not results in a loss of credibility, and if your case goes before an Administrative Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Judge may not look favorably upon a case where a spurious argument was made at the initial stage of the process.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire