Federal Disability Retirement: The Socratic Method

It is a lost art; a contribution from the vestiges of Western Philosophy which was once the pinnacle of an admired approach.  It is a cousin of another from a quote attributed to that “first philosopher”: That an unexamined life is not worth living.  Together — of an internal examination coupled with an external analysis — they constitute the basic foundation of knowledge and the pursuit of truth.

High schools have abandoned the approach; colleges avoid it as being too time-consuming; and in the end, we have just become a polemical society drowning in our own indoctrination of thoughtless regurgitations of convenient soundbites.  For, the Socratic Method is that which the child first begins with: Why?

It is the question based upon curiosity, of a natural desire to seek the Truth.  It is, furthermore, a refusal to accept an answer of why and how we do things, of what we assert to know, “just because”, and instead, to keep pushing to the outer limits of knowledge until certainty and certitude are attained.

That is why, for Federal and Postal Office employees 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, a call to a competent attorney will result in being subjected to a form of the Socratic Method: Questions in order to ascertain whether or not you are eligible and entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

For, in the end, the truth of your Federal Disability Retirement case must be able to overcome the obstacles which the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will be placing in your pathway.

Contact a FERS Disability Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS by engaging in the ancient methodology of the Socratic Method.

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 Legal Assistance: The Letdown After

It is a positive thing to have goals; to set aside things, days, events, etc. to look forward to; to change up the monotony of daily living exercises and take a day off, go to visit a friend; but then the event, day, set-aside, etc., passes, and there is the letdown after.

Perhaps it is natural, or not; maybe it is to be expected.  In either case, whether natural or meta-natural, the severity of the emotional letdown often reflects the gap between expectation and reality.  For, isn’t that one of the foundational “keys” to happiness or discontent?

If our expectations are X and the reality which we encounter is also X, we are “happy”.  If, on the other hand, our expectations are X but the reality we experience is Y, then the “gap” between our expectations and the reality we must face will result in an emotion of discontent.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who look forward to the Holidays, the weekend, the next respite — the letdown after is palpable.  Why?  Because any future stopgap measures fail to attend to the foundational problems which create the gap between expectations and reality — one’s medical condition.

Consider filing for and applying for Federal Disability Retirement, a benefit which is there to solve the problem of an incompatibility between your medical conditions and the positional duties you must perform in your Federal or Postal job.  It is, in the end, the only solution for the letdown after.

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.

 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Disability Retirement Benefits: Where to Start

Of course, the “where” is not properly the true concern — for, it is not the location, but rather a different sense of the word that is applied.  The “where” concerns the juncture or the beginning point of a process; of what information to gather; the arguments to be made; the emphasis upon which to direct their attention; the nexus that must be established, etc.

While all that must be gathered, argued, collected, assembled, collated, described, delineated, combined, etc. — the “where” is often meant to merely be a beginning point that is logically ensconced within the entirety of the complex process.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who ask that question or query that puzzle, the answer is simple: Begin with the foundation.  And, what is the foundation?  The foundation is the medical concern itself; and once the foundation is laid, then to work towards the conclusion as to why the Federal or Postal worker can no longer perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job.

Where to start?  Contact a disability attorney who specializes exclusively in the field of OPM Disability Retirement Law, and begin from there.  For, in the end, that is clearly the logical beginning point of the complex process involving the bureaucratic morass of Federal Disability Retirement Law through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

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.

 

Postal & Federal Employee Disability Retirement: The Distorted Mirror

Have you ever looked at yourself in a distorted mirror?  You know, those which we encounter by chance — at an antique shop; an old hotel where the lobby hangs a mirror where the face expands horizontally while the body stretches vertically; or in one of those “fun houses” at a carnival — of distorted mirrors throughout as giggling children pass by with gleeful gibberish while wives and other women fret about how their reflections fail to flatter.

The distorted mirror is an object lacking objectivity, and is often deliberately meant to obfuscate the reality surrounding and instead to influence the subjective perspective in the very perceiving of the universe through a lens that misinterprets our surroundings.  We recognize the distortion of the distorted mirror; yet, we fail to recognize the distortion of our own subjective perceptions through error of thought.

Outside influences often help to distort our own thinking — like medical conditions which distort our perspective of the world in the same way that the distorted mirror contorts our own self-image.  With medical conditions — whether of physical or psychiatric — we tend to view the world in a more negative manner.

Contact a lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law under FERS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and don’t let the distorted mirror of a medical condition rob you of your future security because of fears of the unknown which can contort one’s view like watching one’s self in the distorted mirror.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Attorney
Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer

 

Disability Retirement under Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS): Continent of the Arbitrary

The metaphor encompasses an image of expansiveness; for, while a city, a town, and even a country can trigger an image which we can conceptually grasp, a “continent” — of Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America, Australia and Antarctica — simply boggles the mind and goes beyond our ability to put our arms around it.

And “arbitrariness”?  Life is so arbitrary that it can only be conceptually linked to the image of a continent.  Where we were born; in what state of health we came into being; who we met; how we became who we are — is it all by chance, by circumstance; or, does fate and predestination by heavenly influence play any part of it?

“What fates impose, that men must needs abide; it boots not to resist both wind and tide” — Henry VI, Part 3, Act IV, Scene 4.

The arbitrariness of life is, indeed, a continent of despair, and medical conditions appear as merely another facet of arbitrary causes without reason — why does it hit some people at certain ages and not others; and in the end, where is the fairness of it all within this vast 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 your Federal or Postal job, consider contacting a Federal Lawyer to initiate the complex administrative process of Federal Disability Retirement.

For, while your circumstances may be the result of a continent of the arbitrary, your obtaining of Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS need not be, and having a legal expert on your side may greatly enhance your chances of success and minimize the arbitrary nature of the bureaucratic process.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: Failure of Proof

What does it mean to “fail to prove” something?  Who, in the end, determines such a “failure”?

A benefit which is part of being a Federal or Postal employee — OPM Disability Retirement under the FERS system — must of course include “proof” that the Federal employee or Postal worker is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job; but what constitutes failure in meeting that burden of proof?

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, of course, is the “gatekeeper” at the Initial Stage of the Federal Disability Retirement process, as well as the Second, Reconsideration Stage of the process.  The “safety” mechanism is that, if OPM denies the application for Federal Disability Retirement at both the First Stage as well as the Second, Reconsideration Stage, a Federal Disability Retirement applicant can file an appeal with the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board — taking it out of the hands of OPM and placing it before an administrative judge for an administrative, telephonic hearing.

For, OPM’s methodology of “proving” that there has been a “failure of proof” is by selectively choosing everything undermining a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement case, then proceeding to make conclusions based upon those selectively chosen bases and ignoring everything else.  It is, in the end, not a failure of proof that defeats an OPM Medical Retirement submission, but more often than not, a baseless claim by OPM that proof by a preponderance of the evidence has not been met.

To counter this, contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and meet the baseless assertion of a failure of proof by proving that the failure was a failure of proper adjudication.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Problem Solving

We are not all that good at it; some, better than others; the rest of us, standing by as watchful bystanders.  Is problem-solving done by methodological discourse, or by random attempts of trial and error?

Certainly, for engineering and scientific challenges, esoteric training and background has an advantage; but did the first person who came to the end of a peninsula and observed an island just beyond — did the thought of a bridge or a boat appear because of some specialized knowledge, or simply out of one’s imagination?

In modernity, problems and their solutions tend to be compartmentalized into specialized areas of training.  Aside from problems of the run-of-the-mill character (family squabbles, teenagers, lost pets and a leaky faucet, etc.), most are challenges within a specified field of expertise.  We no longer live in a world where mysteries abound and explorers wonder (wander?) whether there is an edge at the far side of the oceans.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have a problem with a medical condition which prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it may be time to call an expert in the field of Federal Disability Law and prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.  For, problem solving is not merely a matter of a problem identified, but of a solution thoughtfully contemplated.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS OPM Disability Attorney

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: This Day’s Trial

It is enough to contend with; this day’s trial, as opposed to tomorrow’s, or the day after that; or of constant rumination upon yesterday’s trial, or last week’s.  Life is complicated and challenging; to worry beyond the trials of today makes it almost too much.  Between obligations of work, family, taking care of one’s elder parents, fear of the pandemic, attempting to juggle the multiple demands coming at you from every which way — beyond this day’s trial is something that must be set aside until the next dawn’s light opens one’s eyes.

For those with medical conditions, of course, the trial itself is exponentially pronounced; for, the yearning for the time when the day’s trial merely contained all of that which has been described — but without the medical condition — would be preferred on any given day.  But that this day’s trial could be without the medical condition.

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, this day’s trial always begins and ends with the medical condition itself.  Consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Contact a Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer, and begin to minimize this day’s trial so that tomorrow’s trial is less of a burden than this day’s trial.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Disability for Federal and Postal Employees: Comparisons

Does it help to make them?  Do we take comfort in judging the relative plusses and minuses in making comparisons — as in, X has A, B and C, but I have, in addition, D and E, and therefore I am more fortunate that X is.  Or, is it a comparison of one’s conditions, as in: “Boy, at least I don’t have X like Lisa does”, or “At least I am not in Y’s situation”?

To the extent that comparisons remind us of that which we are blessed with, they allow for a certain level of utilitarian value.  But there is a negative side to it: Of jealousy engendered by comparison, or of discontent resulting from making one.  Rousseau, of course, makes that point throughout his “Social Contract” analysis, of the purity of man’s intentions in that fictional state of “nature” that we were once in, but where society’s accretions of materialism created the artificial emotional response of discontent and jealousy.  But compared to what?

It is important to make the fair and correlative comparisons which are relevant — as in “apples to apples” and not “apples to oranges”.  For, it is the uniqueness of each entity, object or situation to be compared with the singularity of another that makes for a proper comparison.

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 inadvisable to compare one’s case to somebody else’s.  For, the proper comparison is not to evaluate one’s medical condition and the severity of one’s medical condition to that of another person’s medical condition; rather, the proper comparison in a Federal Disability Retirement case is to compare one’s medical condition to the essential elements of one’s position.

Thus, comparisons made must always take into account the relevant connections which relate not just in terms of similarities, but as is the case in Federal Disability Retirement Law — in what the law allows for and considers significant.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Responding to a Denial

More than ever, OPM is denying Federal Disability Retirement applications.  Whether by deliberate design, tightening of legal criteria, imposition of an informal quota system or “just because”, it is clear that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management has instituted a campaign of denying Federal Disability Retirement benefits to applicants seeking it.

Is there a basis in the law?  Are all denials justified?  Have they become more focused upon certain aspects of the legal criteria while ignoring others?  Is there a “typical” denial letter?

Some denials retain little to no justification; others appear to provide some rational basis; still others counter with detailed reasonings as to the legal basis for the denial.  The spectrum of the legal basis varies; and then, of course, there are approvals that seem to pass through with nary an objection.  Each case is unique because of the inherent circumstances surrounding the basic foundation of the health or medical condition and its relationship to the Federal or Postal worker’s specific job elements.

FERS Disability Retirement is unique and different from Social Security Disability benefits because the standard of eligibility is distinctively and identifiably unique: Social Security, generally speaking, requires a showing of “total disability”, whereas FERS Disability Retirement merely mandates a much lesser proof of being”unable to perform” one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job functions.

In the end, whether OPM has instituted a policy showing greater arbitrariness in its last Federal Disability Retirement determinations — or not — there is “The Law” which continues to guide and define. Consult with an experienced Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law before frantically trying to respond to a denial of a Federal Disability Retirement Application.  For, after the First Denial and the need to go to the Reconsideration Stage of the process, it is all a matter of the law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire