OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Empathy and Pain

“I feel your pain” has become a declaration of empathetic character in modernity; but whether born of sincerity or from political expediency, one can never know, precisely because empathy as a subjective phenomena is just as elusive as pain itself remains.

How does one assess or judge, evaluate or analyze, confirm or conclude with any amount of certainty, the extent, severity, reality or even of simple existence of that which is subjective by definition?

Pain, like one’s motive, falls within the realm of a person’s own experiential declaration, and is confined by the boundaries of one’s own body and universe of phenomena within the voices of one’s inner conscience and consciousness.

That is why the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers Compensation (OWCP) expends its resources in verifying a claimant’s assertion of pain, limitation of physical activities and restrictions from certain duties, by video-taping hours and hours of a person’s daily activities and recreational engagements — to see whether the subjective claims correspond with the objective participation of external performances.

Why doesn’t the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, for purposes of verifying a disability retirement claim, engage in similar tactics in determining — not “empathy” or the sincerity thereof, and not even necessarily the pain claimed — the extent and severity of medical conditions claimed?

Likely, because the standard and criteria in determining eligibility for the benefits are quite different.

For OWCP purposes, while it is not a retirement system but a means of compensating an injured individual in order to have the ultimate goal of returning him or her back to work, the standard of paying a Federal or Postal worker “temporary total disability” would clearly imply two (2) things.

First, as already stated, that the compensation to be provided is “temporary” (i.e., that it is not meant to remain a permanent feature of earned wage replacement) and Secondly, that a person’s incapacitation is “total” in that he or she is not able to engage in other meaningful employment and, furthermore, that the totality of the disability likely also impacts other areas of his or her life, as well — i.e., leisure activities, recreational participation, or even being able to take out the garbage (a familiar tactic of video-taping in DOL cases).

In a Federal Disability Retirement case, however, under the auspices of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, a person who is receiving a Federal Disability Retirement annuity is allowed to also work at another job, so long as it is identifiably distinguishable from the former Federal or Postal job from which the FERS Disability Retirement benefits are received, and so long as one remain’s under the “80% rule” that caps one’s earning potential.

Empathy aside, the pain that limits and restricts is often under a cloud of suspicion by the Department of Labor, precisely because “feeling one’s pain” is seen from the side of OWCP as the criteria for paying out benefits, whereas under OPM rules, it is merely a lesser standard in order to remain productive in the private sector.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
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

 

FERS Disability Retirement from the OPM: Formulating the argument

How does one formulate “the argument”?  Is it merely a reaction that comes naturally, like the person who has been tagged as one who is “constantly argumentative”?  Do all arguments need to provide a foundation of rational discourse — of coherence within an invective of counter-statements, and structure countermanding a deterioration of civility?

For example, when a person begins to answer the questions posed on SF 3112A, that is, the Applicant’s Statement of Disability, in preparing an effective Federal OPM Disability Retirement application under FERS — does one pause, consider the various answers that may be provided, and establish a methodology in proceeding to satisfy the question? Does the Federal or Postal employee contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits consider first the consequences of one’s answers, and do you weave throughout a thoughtful argument for an approval?  Or, should the “argument” be filed via a separate Legal Memorandum, pointing out the relevant laws, citing the statues and quoting from various cases that have previously addressed the issues posed?

Most people who file for FERS Medical Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management fail to consider the preemptive arguments that should be made within the answers to questions posed on SF 3112A, and thus are denied at the First Stage of the process because the applicant thought that a simple question asked required a similarly-simple answer as requested.

Then, of course, when the Initial Denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application is received through the mail, the Second Stage of the process — the “Reconsideration Stage” — merits further formulation of legal arguments.  At whatever “stage” you are at — whether at the First and Initial Stage; the second, “Reconsideration” Stage; or even at the Third Stage, an Appeal with the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board — formulating a coherent, cogent and rational argument that persuades OPM to approve the Federal Disability Retirement application is an important component in a winning FERS Medical Retirement application.

Remember — to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is not like having an argument with a friend or spouse; it is an argument which must be based upon facts, evidence, and legal precedents, and to have the best “shot” at it requires the hand of an Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS Disability Retirement Lawyer

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Standard of incompatibility

How does one “prove” a standard of “incompatibility”?

Physical injuries often allow for a medical opinion to impose certain restrictions:  No lifting more than X-pounds; no standing more than 2 hours within an 8-hour period, etc.  These, then, can directly “prove” that a Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, by comparing such restrictions as against the positional requirements of a given job, and “showing” that the standard required can no longer be met.

The “other” cousin of the standard, as reiterated by cases represented by Henderson v. OPM and related precedents, allow for a “different” type of proof, where one may show that there is a general incompatibility between the entirety of one’s position and the medical conditions one suffers from.

It might be argued that such a standard is more “nebulous” and “harder to prove”, but in fact, the opposite is often true: specificity on a 1-to-1 ratio between a given medical condition or symptom and an element of one’s positional duties no longer becomes necessary.  Rather, a general showing of incompatibility between the “type” of job and the “nature” of a medical condition is enough to qualify for Federal Disability Retirement.

The trick, of course, lies in the manner of “proving” it, but it should be of some comfort to Federal and Postal employees that there is another type of standard beyond the 1-to-1 ratio standard that applies generally for “physical” duties; for, in the end, many psychiatric conditions can only meet the “incompatibility” standard, although some specificity of inability to perform a particular function of the job may be present as well.

To meet either standard is a burden of proof that must be shown by the appellant in all OPM Disability Retirement cases; to understand, apply and satisfy such standards, it is best to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer Representation OPM Disability Retirement: Arbitrariness of life

What defines arbitrariness?  Is it when there is a lack of pattern, or does our own input of misunderstanding or lack of comprehension determine the defined formlessness of the world around us?  Is Kant right in his implications – that the “noumenal” world that is outside of our sphere of cognitive input remains unknowable, arbitrary, unfathomable and unreachable, and it is only by the categories of internal psychological structures that we naturally impose upon the world, make sense of it, and “order” it so that we are thus able to comprehend it, that such an understanding between the bifurcated universes of the phenomenal world we comprehend and the noumenal world we can never grasp defines the penultimate concept of that which is arbitrary?

And what of the “arbitrary life” – is it merely that which we do not understand, or is there more to it than that?

Most people live lives that establish a consistent “pattern” of progression.  Thus do old sayings go: “A person is a communist in the morning, a radical in the early afternoon, but if he is not a conservative by nightfall, he has never grown up.”  Or even of the implicit response of the Sphinx: “a man who is four-legged, then two, then three” – implies a systematic progression, then degeneration of sorts; in other words, a pattern of life-cycles.

And we expect a blue-print of what it means to live a “successful” life – of education, work, family and career, where there is a consistent increase in wealth, wisdom and weariness of strangers that continues to expand and grow.  But what if there is an interruption to that “pattern” or “blue-print” that everyone expects?  What if misfortune befalls, bankruptcy is added or divorce, death or even a hurricane and flooding descends upon one’s life – does the unfortunate event suddenly make one’s life an arbitrary one? Or, what about the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who must suddenly face a medical condition, such that the medical condition no longer allows for the Federal or Postal employee to perform all of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job – does that make the interruption of life’s constancy suddenly into an ‘arbitrary’ life?

The definition of that which makes X arbitrary is always related to the “randomness” of events; but for human beings, it is indeed the perspective one has and the calm within a storm that influences whether the objective basis of that which is arbitrary is influenced by the subjective approach of a person’s life.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who must consider filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the initial steps in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application may determine, objectively, the future course of the Federal Disability Retirement application itself, as to whether it was “arbitrarily” compiled or systematically composed.

Like the orchestra that has an off-tune instrument, the symphony created will determine whether one’s Federal Disability Retirement application is a crescendo of progression, or merely a disturbing sound of failure.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire