FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: Before and After

Do you remember those old pictures on the advertising pages of various magazines?  Or, perhaps they are still there?

Whether for diets, some “Atlas He-Man” powder to build muscles; where the “before” picture is always grainy and indecipherable; whereas the “after” photograph is of a beaming, smiling, clearly and visibly an ecstatic person, satisfied and happy with the product and the end results.

comparison of the two — the person “before” and the individual “after” — is always of dubious quality (at least with respect to the “before”), and triggers the question:  Is it the same person?

But the question itself is somewhat irrelevant — for, of course, in one sense, it is not the same person; the person “after” is different because that is the whole purpose of the advertisement, to convey to the reader that the person “after” is a different person from the person “before”, and the photographs are meant to show you the difference.

So, is it false advertising if the person photographed in the “after” picture is not the identical person as the one shown “before”?

In one sense, it obviously is, because the advertisement is trying to persuade you that the product being sold is what caused the change, and surely if you photograph the “before” person as being the same — but now different — as the “after” person, some semblance of subterfuge was engaged in.

On the other hand, if the whole purpose of the advertisement is to convince you that both the “before” person and the “after” person (both of whom presumably used the product being sold) are, in fact, “different” from one another, then how is it that there is any falsity in the advertisement?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service 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, clearly — and without false advertising — there is a difference between the “before” and the “after”.

Before the medical condition, the Federal or Postal employee was a vibrant, productive worker.  After the chronic medical condition — well, the clear necessity to prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under the FERS system tells the whole story.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in OPM Medical Disability Retirement Law, and let not the dubious advertising of those “before” and “after” photographs in those old ads detract you from pursuing the need for FERS Disability Retirement benefits before the after of the debilitating health conditions worsens and goes too far.

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.

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: The Bellwether

It is the leading sheep of the flock, graced with a bell on its neck in order to establish its role for the others; or, in more colloquial parlance, the predictor or indicator of something.

Thus, a red sky may be the bellwether of a coming storm (not being a seaman, one forgets whether it is the night or morning sky which is the predictor).  If one is superstitious, a cracked mirror or the unexpected crossing of a black cat is likely a bellwether of something — although, in modernity, perhaps the anachronisms no longer apply.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows the Federal or Postal employee to continue in his or her Federal or Postal job, the question of a bellwether is appropriate.

Under FERS Disability Retirement laws, one must be able to show that a medical condition will last a minimum of 12 months.  One does NOT have to wait the 12 months in order file; merely, that a doctor can, within reasonable medical probability, “predict” or provide a prognosis that a medical condition will last for at least that long.

Most Federal and Postal workers “know” from the start whether or not a medical condition will last a minimum of 12 months; such a bellwether is not rocket science, but more of an intuition established by one’s sense of one’s own health.

Contact a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and see whether the bellwether rings for the pathway towards an early medical retirement under FERS.

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 Disability Retirement Representation: Guidance by Expertise

You can tell when it is “not” the case; the mishmash, the inconsistencies; the errors of content and significance; and it is precisely when guidance is lacking which the glaring inadequacies show, and can be taken advantage of by the other side.

When a play is performed on stage and the focus is upon the story itself — where criticism is targeted more on whether this actor or actress was better in her role here than in another play, or whether a certain scene accurately portrayed the story, etc. — and not upon the poor lighting, or the sound quality, then it becomes clear that the production itself was through the guidance of expertise.

When things go as they are supposed to, embracing the old adage of “smooth sailing”, it is likely that there was guidance by expertise.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, guidance by expertise means that there is a coordination of the facts, the evidence and the law.

It doesn’t mean that every case will be approved; however, the chances of an approval will be greatly enhanced precisely because guidance by expertise is performed by a master of the production.

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.

Federal Disability Retirement Benefits: The Referee

There has always been an endless debate as to the preparatory value of playing sports — does engaging in competitive sports prepare one for the “real world”; do individualized sports (i.e., tennis, swimming, running, etc.) access the same “benefits” as “group” sports (i.e., basketball, football, soccer, baseball, etc.)?

Does “team” spirit, cooperative engagement with others, a sense of “belonging”, of sacrificing for the greater whole, etc., have any benefits in “preparing” one for the adult world of work and capitalism?  Or, does it merely reinforce certain negative instincts which “civilized” society has been trying to expunge for the past century?

Then, of course, there is the question of the referee — the role of one; whether and to what extend bias and favoring is involved; or, whether we should merely rely entirely upon instant replay and other electronic devices?  Should the “human factor” be allowed to rule, or should a game be determined by the precision of a computer program?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition necessitates filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, don’t be fooled into thinking that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is an unbiased “referee” who will make a fair determination on your Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sports (at least the amateur kind) may be for fun and good health, but filing for your Federal Disability Retirement is for “real life”.

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and make sure that you have the proper advocacy to win your case.  For, while the “referee” (OPM) may be empowered to make the call of denying or approving your Federal Disability Retirement application, it is your lawyer who advocates to influence OPM to make the “right” call.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Weight of evidence

When you walk into a room full of people, how does one differentiate, define, separate and discern?  Remember that once-popular fictional work entitled, Tarzan of the Apes by (originally) Edgar Rice Burroughs?

There is a scene (whether from one of the various versions depicted on screen) where young Tarzan is surrounded by a crowd of “civilized” individuals staring, prodding, looking on with curiosity — and the young man who had been brought up in the wild lacks the capacity to compartmentalized the sudden bombardment of overstimulation, and runs amok amidst the finery of a social setting.

How is it that we learn to differentiate and categorize from among the massive aggregate of stimuli directed at us?  Do we, as Kant posits, impose mental categories upon the chaos of the world?  How do we learn to determine the “weight” of importance, significance or even of relevance upon the various activities that surround, impart and become directed at ourselves or around and about our purview?

And in the legal context, how do we know what weight of evidence should be submitted, and how to organize it into a priority of relevance?

You know the old joke — or is it merely a “trick”? — Of telling a person to “listen carefully,” and misleading the listener into thinking that the question you will be asking concerns the number of people left, when in fact you are deliberately misguiding them, saying: “Now 5 people entered the elevator and it went up 2 floors, then 3 people got off and 5 more got on, then the elevator went up again 2 more floors, where 1 person got on and…”.  At the end of the “story”, the question posed is not, “How many people are left?”, but instead, “What floor are you on”?

The evidence for both are there; it is the weight upon the relevant information that was missed.

Or, of that eccentric oddball who watches an action-packed movie or episode, and at the end of it, while everyone is commenting about this or that favorite scene of explosions, mayhem and bad-guy-got-his-due scene, the odd-man-out says, “Yes, I thought that the person who wore the yellow tie should have retied it, because it was a bit crooked.”

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 recognize the weight of evidence, the relevance of the information submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and the significance of guiding OPM into viewing the evidence with a roadmap of persuasion.

Legal memorandums that delineate the evidence compiled, argue the law that is persuasive, and preemptively organizes the basic components in answering “why” a client is eligible — nay, entitled — to Federal Disability Retirement benefits, is important in light of the variety of evidence being submitted, not only by the applicant, but also by the Agency or the Postal Facility (which is not always favorable).

Is the Federal Disability Lawyer you have consulted or are about to consult, doing this?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement from OPM: Purposive sequence

Are all things in a sequence “purposive”?  If you are walking in the countryside and come upon a horse, a man and a pig, in that order, was there any “purposive” meaning in the sequence met, or was it random and a reflection of the chaos of the universe as a whole?  If it had been in a different order — say, you first came upon the pig, then the horse, and finally the man — would there be a question as to either the sequence or the meaning of the sequence?

Now, take a different hypothetical, where you come into a child’s room who is engrossed in fantasy and play, and the child has a sequence of stuffed animals: Again, they are in a line of a stuffed horse, a doll of a man, and a large plastic pig, in the very sequence you encountered while out in the countryside.  You laugh and say to the child, “Oh, that’s very peculiar, I just came across those three in the identical sequence you have them in.  Of course, it is just coincidence, but nevertheless odd.”  The child smiles, turns to you and says, “Of course it’s not a coincidence.  The horse is the most beautiful creature in the universe, and therefore comes first; the man is the cleverest, and therefore should be second; and the pig is the smartest, but since intelligence should come after beauty and be placed below being clever, he comes third!”

In such an instance, did the fact that a purposive assignment of intent change the sequence and the meaning ascribed?  In other words, did the “human” explanation as to the sequence presented alter the objective foundation behind the orderliness of the universe, or does it yet remain in chaos except for the subjective ordering by the child?  Or, is Kant correct in positing that the chaos of the universe is internally ordered by human categories structuring the outside world, and left without such subjective impositions, we would never be able to comprehend the disordered universe?

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, it is important to engage in a purposive sequence of completing the Federal Disability Retirement application.

The medical condition itself is chaos enough, as it impacts one’s life and livelihood, but it is the medical condition that becomes the center and foundation of a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.  From the chaos imposed from the objective world, a purposive sequence must be countered from the subjective universe of the Federal or Postal employee, and that purposive sequence must begin with the chaos of the unordered world itself: The medical condition, from which all else naturally and artificially proves the case to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire