FERS Medical Retirements: Future Uncertainties

Human beings love certainties; but in this cold and objective, dispassionate world, such certainties can rarely be relied upon.

Hume’s causation argument undermined any attempt to establish repetition as a basis for future events, precisely because X occurring the thousandth time gives us no concrete evidence that the next time will result in any causal reliability.

Probability theory aside, as Hume argued, there is missing any “necessary connection” which would establish a predictable nexus to extrapolate future reliability based upon prior life events.  Without that necessary connection, causal certainty can never be ascertained.— or so his argument goes.

Yet, we continue to rely upon future certainties regardless of such “conceptual proofs” to the contrary, for, what other choice do we have?  We cannot wander throughout our lives  without reliance upon some semblance of causal expectation, otherwise, we would be like newborn infants every day with no sense of security or stability.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service workers under FERS who suffer from an illness or injury which impacts their future certainty in their Federal or postal career, a large stumbling block is the uncertainty of being approved for a future medical retirement application.

Although there can never be a causal guarantee when it involves the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, you can increase the probability of a successful outcome if you are adequately represented by an experienced attorney.

Citing the proper and relevant case laws and formulating the most effective legal arguments will increase the probability for future success.  To that end, applying to OPM does not need to seem like reinventing the proverbial wheel every time, or like being that lost child wandering in the woods without any sense of security.

Contact a FERS Lawyer experienced in Federal Disability Law, and increase your chance for a more certain future, despite what Hume says.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Experienced lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their FERS Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

FERS Medical Retirement: Abandonment of Methodology

Modernity denounces methodology.  Suspicions abound when it comes to traditional invocations of previously-tried methods.  The young denounce method; “on the fly” is considered the nouveau appetite in “basement-beginning” internet start-ups; of young geniuses who can do no wrong.  Systematized business models; the way things have always been; the need to know one’s place and to wait for one’s turn; these, and many more, are considered  the antiquated detritus of past misgivings.

While no one needs to invent the wheel each time, the trend has been to celebrate creativity and innovation, and in the process, to abandon tradition, old ways, and thus old people.  This is a culture of youth, and so the plastic surgery industry and cosmetic do-over trends have exploded into successful business ventures.  Even “rational thought” is being abandoned — of the outmoded logical structures in proper argumentation, the Aristotelian model of symbolic logic:  Out the Metaphorical Window!

Yet, in some corners of rational discourse, methodology must remain essential.  For, the “law” depends upon methodology; of a logical, linear manner of argumentation.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition where initiation of the Federal Disability Retirement process must be engaged, do not think that merely gathering up one’s medical records and submitting them with the SF 3107 and SF 3112 series of forms will get you by the eagle-eyes of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Yes, the rest of culture may have accepted the abandonment of methodology, but in the Federal bureaucracy, a sound legal approach steeped in methodological minutiae is still the successful articulation needed to win a Federal Disability Retirement case under the FERS retirement system.

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 Medical Retirement: Insularity of Silence

It is of comfort when needed; like a cocoon, or perhaps the desire of reverting back to a womb-like existence; and in times of sorrow, the need to be left alone.

Silence is often uncomfortable for many; in this world of endless cacophony, where noise is the necessity of Heidegger’s suspicion that we work, play and engage in hobbies merely to avoid the reality of our existence, of eventual mortality and the thought of nothingness; and of the constant clatter of social media, of being “connected” — in the midst of it all, insularity of silence is often a welcomed respite.

One only has to stay a night in a rural part of this country to realize the pervasive pollution of lights, sounds and — noises.  Lights can often give some comfort, for to “see” is the prevailing basis of a sense of safety.  Sounds, too, when they are familiar, create an invisible network of familiarity, and thus appease our fears.

Noise — that clatter of unfamiliarity, jumbled together — is what we often need escaping from.  Sometimes, silence itself is a comfort, and the insularity it provides can be the blanket of warmth we require.  For, are we organically organized to receive a constant and incessant barrage of metallic clanking?

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, the insularity of silence often becomes a detriment, only because being silent and “bucking up” each day and working without complaining is often what OPM will argue as the basis of a denial.

If your Agency says you are doing a good job even though you are killing yourself in keeping up with your duties, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will use that as evidence that you are not disabled “enough” to qualify for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.

Contact an OPM Medical Retirement Attorney to discuss how to counter such inane arguments, and see whether or not the insularity of silence which you continue to cloak yourself in is helpful, or harmful, to your Federal Disability Retirement case.

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: Leaving Chunks Out

Sometimes, if done carefully, the abbreviated story “works” better — if the punch line makes sense despite leaving the chunks out.

For many years, I had been under the impression that I had read the full text of a major novel of stupendous length (you can guess which one it is — yes, of the Russian sort).  I later realized that it was an “abridged” version.  When I then read the unabridged version, my conclusions were: the editors of the abridged edition did a better job; the chunks left out did not add to the story, and should likely have been edited out to begin with, leaving a shorter abridged edition without identifying it as an abridged edition.  And finally: The Russian author was clearly too impressed with his own verbosity.

“Leaving chunks out” is often done in other contexts, as well — as in, responding to a spouse’s question, “What took you so long to come home?” — you leave out the fact that you had stopped off at a local bar and sat and drank for a couple hours.  Of course, the next obvious question in that context is: “How come you smell of alcohol”?

Leaving chunks out when the motive and intent is underlined by a nefarious paradigm is where the problem resides.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management does this all of the time in their denial letters:  They extrapolate only the selective portions of the medical record which will support a denial; they will ignore “the law” and the application of the law; they will make statements which “imply” certain consequences, and multiple other actions (or inactions) which leave chunks of information out.

Contact an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and make sure and force OPM to do what they are supposed to do: Of being an objective and uninterested party in the determination of your Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application 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.

OPM Disability Retirement Benefits: The Players

Whether in a play, on a sports team or surrounding a poker table, they comprise the gamut of those involved, whether of centrality, marginal, peripheral, “somewhat”, etc.

In life generally, we have a “role” to play.  Some begin to find such terms to imply inauthenticity; but in any household, in any company, in any game, there are central characters, role players, bit-players and even “the boss”.  Or, in a family — of a father, a husband, the primary earner, etc.

It is always good to know “the players” in any circumstance, because they are the ones who must be dealt with, understood, tolerated, placed in the properly assigned status, etc.  Characters in plays, books, short stories, etc., likewise encompass the universe of the players involved.

In a Federal Disability Retirement case, there are also “the players” — the doctors (who will support a case); the agency’s Human Resources personnel; the Initial decider at OPM; the potential decider at the Reconsideration level; the Administrative Judge at the MSPB — all are players, whether currently inactive or potentially involved.  And your lawyer — a specialist in Federal Disability Retirement Law — should be one of the central players.

Contact a disability attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin to round up the cast of characters who will play an integral role in your quest for OPM Disability Retirement Law — the “players” who will be playing in the field of Federal Disability Retirement.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement Law: The Village

On the political spectrum, conservatives scoffed at the idea (represented as a target of a book written by a hated political figure on the left); and liberals constantly embraced the idea, despite repeated labeling of socialism and unwanted interference from others.

The idea of the “rugged individual” as opposed to a cradle-to-cremation nanny state — the conceptual opposites are characterized by the false narrative of extreme choices, of a disjunctive which is no longer applicable, and a failure to have a productive discussion.

Most people actually hold dear the idea of a “village” — of a caring and close community.  On the other hand, most people also want the opportunity to be able to become “successful” without the burden of over-taxation and government interference.  Can both be concurrently established?  Can a balance be attained?

Federal Disability Retirement is a paradigm for that balance.  For, while it pays an annuity to the Federal retiree based upon a disability which prevents him or her from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, yet it allows for that individual to remain productive and go out into the private sector and make up to 80% of what his or her former position currently pays.  It is a system whereby “the village” allows for both — an annuity from the “nanny state”, and an allowance to remain productive and “successful”.

Contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider whether or not you can qualify for entrance into the Village.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: In the way

We talk about objects being “in the way”; of an accident on the road and we complain, “Why can’t they just pull over and get their vehicles out of the way?”  We use similar phraseology when we “objectify” human beings, as in — when we seethe with anger and retribution at some person — the threatening tone of: “Stay out of my way!”

Does the subtle (or not so subtle) alteration in language’s usage determine how we treat another human being?  When a driver gets irritated with a bicyclist who is not so adept at keeping a straight and narrow line on the roadway, do we forget suddenly the value of human life and see it merely as an “object” that is “in the way”?

And when you read of stories of human tragedies — of a person who negligently ran over a person and seriously injured or — worse, yet — killed a pedestrian, we realize the thin line between insanity and rationality, of love and hate, and the vulnerability of passions left out of control and going berserk when it is often the language we use so carelessly that leads to the tumults of life’s misgivings.

Objects are often “in the way”; can it ever be that people are also?  Do we bypass one another and ignore the plight of others because of our capacity and ability to objectify those very subjects we want to ignore and avoid?

Utopia is an idea of human perfection; the reality of this real world is quite different, where love, cooperation and human compassion lags far behind because the essence of human nature is far below the paradigm of perfection.  Honking the horn at something “in the way” when one is backed up on the highway in a state of frustration may well shed one of some frustration — until we learn later on that it was the body of a young child hit by a car because he was “in the way”.

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, the concept of “in the way’ is a familiar one — for, the Federal or Postal worker has knowledge of it both as an object, as well as a subject.

The “medical condition” itself is “in the way” — seen as an object that has become an obstacle. Conversely, the Federal Agency or the Postal Service begins to see that once-stellar, high-performing individual — you — as something “in the way” of the Federal Agency’s “mission” and the Postal Service’s “work”.

When the Federal Agency or the Postal Service begins to see a Federal employee as an object, as opposed to a subject, then you know it is time to begin to prepare, formulate and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, lest you become another casualty left in the heap of roadside debris as a passing car yells, “You were in the way!”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The historical data

How much historical data is too much?  Is there a correlation between “too much” and “loss of interest”? In other words, when a history book is written, does the interest shown by the reader begin to wane when a certain point of quantitative overload begins to overwhelm?  Further, does the audience for whom the historical data is written depend upon the extent given?

Certainly, “popular” historical narratives provide “juicier” content than more “serious” biographies, where the salacious aspects of a person’s life or of an event are put to the fore, as opposed to relegating them to footnotes or in those “fine print” pages at the back of the book.

If, for example, data is compiled for an internal study for the “Historical Society of X”, then certain detailed information without limitations might be included — i.e. how many times this or that civilization went to war, went to the bathroom daily, ate one kind of fruit as opposed to another, etc. But if that “study” were to be made into a biography of an indigenous tribe, to be sold to the general public, it might leave out certain of the more uninteresting data, or placed in footnotes or “background notes” at the back of the book.

At what point does a historical narrative become “tedious”?  Again, is there a correlation between “interest shown/sparked/waning/losing” and the extent of data provided?  Is there a “qualitative” difference as opposed to sheer quantitative overload?

These issues are important to keep in mind when a Federal or Postal employee begins to write one’s narrative in response to questions posed on SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability.  For, there is always a tendency on the part of the Federal or Postal applicant to have this unquenchable desire to “tell one’s story”, as opposed to answering the question on SF 3112A in as precise, concise and incisive manner.

At times, some amount of historical background may be relevant and somewhat necessary, but unlike “internal studies” that have no cognizable consequences in providing “too much” information, an overabundance of irrelevant data provided may have a duality of negative results: First, it may take away from, and diminish, the “main point” of the narrative, and Second, you may be providing information that is inadvertently harmful to one’s OPM Disability Retirement case without intending to.

Remember always in a Federal Disability Retirement case, that the eyes that once see cannot be blinded after the fact, and it is better to provide information as a supplemental means in a Federal Disability Retirement case, than to have to explain, correct and amend after a denial is received from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement from OPM: The chasm

It is that expanse between fantasy and reality; of the indentation after the existential encounter with the world deflates the puffery that enlivened us in the first place and compelled one to test his or her mettle against the greater world; and it is the test that withstands, as opposed to mere words that fail when pushed against the substance of the universe.

Virtue is great in a vacuum; it is only when it is tested against real temptations that one can decide upon its existence, or likely not.

One can say of a husband and wife who live on an island, secluded from the rest of civilization, that they are such a “faithful” people; but if not tests arise as to the faith of their fidelity, what good is virtue in a vacuum of an untested existence?  Or of the principled individual who enters into politics — you know, the allegorical “Mr. Smith who goes to Washington” — with innocence and an unstained character; of him or her, we begin with, “Oh, such a principled person!  So unspoiled!  So unable to be corrupted!” But the test of a person is not at the beginning; it is when the chasm between concept and the wide expanse towards reality is finally bridged; then, and only then, can we make any judgments about virtue, truth, reality and one’s character.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition where the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it is the reality of the current situation and the realization that one’s Federal Agency or the Postal Service, and the people who one worked/works with, that comes to the fore in realizing that, NO, the world is not such a nice and accommodating place.

Others begin to whisper; you begin to feel shunned; you are no longer the star that shines upon the face of an otherwise incompetent universe.  Filing for Federal Disability Retirement is often the best option available, if only because the Federal Agency or the Postal Service is unwilling to “work with you”.

The chasm between dreams unrealized and the ugly truth of others may finally be bridged; but in the end, the bridge that needs to be crossed is the health that is deteriorating, and that is why preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether you are under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is an important next step in closing the chasm between what you would like to have happen, and what must occur in order to secure a stable future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation for OPM Disability Claims: The stand-around guy

It is pointed out in contrast to the other finger pointed towards another — not the “stand up” guy (or girl), but the “stand-around” guy (or girl).   The former refers to a person who can be trusted at all times, is straightforward when asked about his or her opinions on a matter, and is generally known as an individual of “good character”.  By contrast, the latter describes a person who is unsure of himself; who loiters because he cannot decide what his purpose is for being anywhere; and is generally picked last, or next to last, when teams are chosen for a pick-up game of basketball or touch football.

It refers to a person who is the “extra” and the odd-man out where, on dinner dates of foursomes or six-somes or whatever-somes, arrives alone and makes it into an awkward three-some, five-some or other-some with an odd number.  She is the little sister tag-along, the younger brother pop-up character and the whac-a-mole that keeps reappearing no matter how many hints are given that his or her company is no longer needed, is undesired or otherwise disinvited; but to be direct and pointed to the stand-around guy would be cruelty in its worst form, as he or she doesn’t quite understand or would rather be subjected to the indignities of being the butt of all jokes rather than to be sent off into the lonely despair of self-confinement and isolation lost upon an island of one’s own thoughts.

He is the person who arrives and never knows where to stand; the last one to be seated, and only if their is an available chair vacated; and yet, the last one to leave despite the desertion of a party where he was unnoticed, never talked to nor engaged and included in conversations where circles and semi-circles of people gathered but no one noticed.

The stand-around guy is the “extra” on a movie-set hoping to get noticed, yet too fearful of such notoriety; and as the activity of the main set continues to focus upon the stars and central figures upon the stage which we call “life”, he or she shuffles about for years and extending into decades, unknowingly contributing to the drama of civilization’s inertness where kindness is rarely shown, humanity is concealed from history, and the cruelty to life’s misery keeps bubbling to the surface like a volcanic eruption percolating unnoticed beneath the seething surface of hidden appearances.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, does it often seem like the rest of the Federal Agency or the Postal Service is beginning to treat you like the “stand-around guy”?

Is it recognized and subtly acknowledged that you are no longer part of that “mission”, and because of your extensive leave-usage or LWOP excessiveness, or merely because you asserted your rights under FMLA, that now relegated into that status of persona non grata, the leper who was mistakenly given a pass out of the leper colony, or like the individual who says things embarrassingly in crowds of socialites who snub their noses at those who feign to be a part of the pseudo-aristocracy?

If you are beginning to be treated like that stand-around guy, it is likely time to begin to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset — lest the stand-around guy becomes the invisible man whose memory is quickly extinguished because of a removal action that came suddenly and unexpectedly from the upper echelons of powers-that-be, who decided to rid the Agency or the Postal Service of that stand-around guy whose presence was no longer needed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire