Federal Disability Retirement: Conditions of Necessity

What are the conditions that make for necessity?  At what point do we judge that an action, a set of utterances or a demand of this or that is “necessary’?  What constitutes the conditions for necessity and are they different for different people?

In other words, is there a tolerance level for Person-X that is distinguishable and qualitatively identifiable than from Individual-Y, such that what creates a condition for necessity for X may make for a yawning indifference for Y?  Do some marriages last longer — in accordance with the vows of fidelity and honoring — because of tolerance by one spouse or the other?  Are there criteria and principles that override, somewhat like what George Harrison’s wife once said in an interview that the key to a long marriage is “not getting a divorce” — meaning, no matter the extent of infidelities or breach of marital vows, if you simply tolerate all such violations, then the conditions of necessity will never arise?

Is that what happens to Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who continue to remain silent, slowly dying a quiet death because of a medical condition that few know about, fewer still would even notice, and almost no one cares a twit about?  Do they continue to kill themselves quietly, pushing themselves through the pain and agony of a medical condition, and denying that the conditions of necessity have risen to a level where tolerance isn’t even a question, anymore?

Conditions of necessity — at what point do they rise to a level where it becomes unavoidable that filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits has been reached and tolerating the symptoms of one’s medical conditions is no longer endurable?

Filing for FERS Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is a long and complex administrative process, and when the conditions for necessity arise to a level where it becomes critical, it is a good idea to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest the conditions of necessity become further complicated such that the bureaucratic morass of a Federal OPM Disability Retirement application becomes further entrenched in the intolerable conditions of necessity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Medical Retirement from the OPM: For better or for…

Do we consider what follows the ellipses when making such a vow?

In youth, when the days of summer are endless and the rainfalls are merely seen as sweetness in dancing folly, do we ever consider the meaning, the phrase, the serious connotation of the “worse”, or do we just focus upon the “better” as in, “This is good, tomorrow is better, and the day after will only get better than better”?

Perhaps it is a genetic advantage inherent for survival’s sake that youth never considers the dark side of the moon; for, to be young and innocent of thoughts forsaking a future yet to become is to move forward with bold forthrightness, and only the fittest would survive such folly of thoughtless advancement.

Would armies have defeated the odds if trepidation of thought were to dominate?  Would the genetic pool of the daring be muddled if not for the foolish stumbling into a future unknown?  What fool thinks about the “worse” when the “better” is right before your eyes?

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 thought of “worse” never came to mind until the medical condition first appeared, then remained, then worsened, then became a chronic condition like an uninvited guest who overstays the welcome of niceties left unstated.

Filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits takes into account both perspectives of the vow that was once stated but never thought of: It is because of the “worse” but it is for the “better”.

The “worse” is the ongoing medical condition that has deteriorated such that it necessitates filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; and the “better” is that, once your Federal Disability Retirement application is approved, you can focus upon your health, the tomorrow of a future yet uncertain, and the commitment to another vow left unstated: To take care of yourself.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Filing for OPM Disability Retirement: Time wasted

It all depends upon one’s perspective, doesn’t it?  For some, watching television is time wasted; for others, reading a novel, and even within that subset of opinions and viewpoints, it often depends upon “what” you are reading before the hammer of judgement is struck: If a beach-time novel, then it is a waste of time; if a classic, then you are utilizing your time wisely.

But what if you are, in fact, sitting on the beach enjoying the lazy lapping of waves, and merely want to get lost in the fantasy of a junk novel — isn’t relaxation a good use of one’s time?  When does “constructive” relaxation turn into time wasted — i.e., laziness?  Is it when the bare necessities of life are no longer attended to?

Of that proverbial brother in-law or other distant relation who is whispered about, who barely holds on to a job, is found spending more time at the corner pub than attending to one’s kids, or the one who constantly oversleeps, overstays his welcome or overstates his woes — is it just a guy who likes to relax, or is he a lazy bum?

Is there a mathematical formula in determining when time is well spent doing nothing, or is wasted?   Sort of like: Time multiplied by the extent of bare necessities required divided by the extent of need, minus particular circumstances that must be taken into account factored by 3.

Can a lifetime be wasted, and if so, what would be the criteria to be applied or imposed?  A wealthy person might contend: We have about 60 years or so to make our fortunes, and if a person has not done so within that timeframe, it is a lifetime wasted.  Some others might counter with: Amassing wealth is not the sole criteria of a worthwhile life; the fostering of human relationships, of making someone else more comfortable, or of even granting a dog some happiness, is what makes this life a worthy one.

Does a medical condition bring about a differing perspective?  For the wealthy person who makes enemies throughout and angers almost everyone with his or her single-minded focus while disregarding the feelings of all else, but who suddenly is hit with deteriorating health — does time take on a different meaning?

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 worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job — is time being wasted by the struggle itself?  Does it appear that everything is an uphill struggle: of juggling doctor’s appointments, work, family obligations, etc.?

Preparing 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, may not be the best solution of all, but it may be the most prudent one, as time is not a friend to be wasted when it comes to one’s health and future security.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: The rate of return

At what point does the rate of return diminish to the extent that it is “no longer worth it.”?  And, what is the “it” referring to?  Is it the effort expended in contrast to the compensation received?  Is it the dividends paid upon an investment ignored?

Often, in all of the contexts just described, the focus is upon the wrong point; it is not the “end product” or the final sum that should determine the worthwhile aspect of the “rate of return”, but rather, the key term overlooked — not the “return”, but the “rate”.  One might argue that the two essentially are the same, inasmuch as the “return” (the sum received) is determined by the “rate” (the calculus that determines).  But are they?  Doesn’t it depend upon what context it is being applied to?

Certainly, when conceived of in a traditional investment category, the final sum received can be backtracked to the rate that has been applied; but what about other, more non-traditional contexts, such as friendships, work — even marriage?  Or does one never apply such cold-hearted calculations when discoursing upon the arena of human relationships?  Can we so easily drop friendships and end marriages based upon the same criteria applied in changing investment firms?

Come to think of it, our own lack of active interest is probably the single biggest reason that marriages and friendships last — because, like those investments that we allow to remain because we are too lazy to take an active interest in, many remain in marriages and friendships well beyond the love that has been lost long ago, or the affection that has waned all too subtly; for, in the end, it is our own laziness and lack of motivation that allows the fallowed pastures to let life slowly die in the uncaring tenements of thoughtless stupor.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers that suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to prevent the full performance of one’s positional duties and the essential elements of the job, the conceptual paradigm of the “rate of return” should be applied in contemplating whether or not to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Surely, the Federal Agency or the Postmaster is thinking along the same lines — is he/she getting the job done?  Can I get more out of someone else?

That is the Agency’s perspective; but what about yours?  Such questions as: Is my health going to improve by remaining?  What will the future options be: remain, resign or file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits?

If the first and second choices are no longer real options, then the third one is a necessity, as it becomes clear that the rate of return is no longer a worthwhile investment to remain in a job that clearly is destroying any semblance of one’s quality of life — and that, in the end, is what the purpose of the investment was all about to begin with.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS: Intrinsic Value

There is, at the outset, a question as to whether such metaphysical distinctions of esoterica have any relevance, anymore.  The ivory towers have all lost their sheen; civilizations have now embraced the comfort of relativism in the West, excepting those outliers who cling to antiquities of thought believed to merely be vestiges of a prehistoric era; and all such bifurcations of minutiae are considered mere word games designed to enhance and promote the ability and capacity for further social engineering.

Perhaps in the pragmatic world of options trading, there remains a definitional need to distinguish between “intrinsic” value and “extrinsic” value; where the nature of the option being traded constitutes the former, and the circumstances and previously-unknowable factors impacting upon the value of the trade itself defines the latter.

In real life, the philosophy of pragmatism itself has dissolved the principles once touted; the Aristotelian differentiation of ascribing value based upon its inner sanctity, as opposed to a derivative preciousness contingent upon other entities or circumstances, was once accepted as a given.  But such metaphysical distinctions have been cast aside upon the trash heap of historical irrelevance, and one rarely hears, anymore, about such highfalutin concepts, as they are now considered outmoded, irrelevant, or worse, pompously presumptuous in a world where only the politically powerful, the super wealthy, or the “beautiful” people are allowed such exemptions of conversational engagements.

One might still argue, in this present age where the force of logical argumentation has been replaced with the volume of vociferous condescension intolerable to auditory quietude, that a great work of art has intrinsic value recognized intuitively, no matter the extrinsic cirumstances.  But if a dystopic universe prevailed, and there was but one person left to visit the last burning embers supporting a museum left as a testament to humanity’s former greatness — but, where, no food was left, and starvation was the remaining mechanism for death of this last poor soul — would the salvaged Rembrandt have any “intrinsic” value, leaving aside the issue of extrinsic worth (of course, human nature being what it is, such a sole survivor may still have the imaginative inner strength to recognize that there may be a future still, and scurry off with such masterpieces in the hope that the future may hold a better day).

Metaphysical principles which once held some meaning, significance and defined linguistic purposes, have now given way to daily blatherings of “I feel” and “I sense”, where, in each such utterance, it is the “I” which defines intrinsic value, and the subjectivity of sensing and feeling enhances the contingency of external worth.  It is, in many ways, a sad loss for all of us, that we should rely upon such subjectivity of an objective-less concept.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, of course, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal positional duties, the loss of any meaningful discussion between the intrinsic worth of X, or even the differentiation from the extrinsic value of Y, results in a universe where we are all treated as “means” to an end, and never just an “end” in and of itself.

That is why protective laws are necessary — precisely because we have lost any semblance of viewing one another as worthy because we belong to a greater principle called “humanity”.  But that is the practical world in which we live, and to which we must abide.

Filing for Federal Employee Disability Retirement is the best option left, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.  Thus, preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is the pragmatic course for future security.  It is in that, where intrinsic value will be found, in the consolation of a future security otherwise lost in the extrinsic void of an unsympathetic universe.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Of poets and prophets

The definitional distinction between the two is fairly self-evident; it is in the interplay of what they do, how they go about it, and the content of their substantive utterances which blur the lines of differences.  And we all have to play both roles in life; of the poet, to speak a reflective voice of a world which can never be captured in its true essence; and in prophetic manner, in maneuvering through a complex universe fraught with dangers of unknown origins, encounters with malicious foes and devious evildoers; and it is with the combination of consolidating the advantages derived from either arenas by which we are able to survive.

Plato’s view of the former, though somewhat inconsistent (he simultaneously criticizes them, but will quote extensively from them in the same paragraph), is devastating because of their concealment of the true forms of entities; the Good Book, of course, is replete with the latter, with conjugations of the major and minor ones in placements of prominence or insignificance depending upon their current relevance and attributable validation.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, embracing the roles of both concurrently becomes a necessity of life’s many features of conundrums, castaways and coercive calamities of creative chaos.

The fact is, most Federal and Postal employees never see themselves as either; yet, throughout life, you have always been both. As a poet, you have had to comprehend and convey an understanding of the world around in terms which utilize analogy, metaphor and imitative language; and as a prophet, you have had to plan for an uncertain future based upon an uninviting present, with little or no basis from past experiences.

Now, with a medical condition which prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional duties, it is incumbent upon the Federal and Postal employee to consolidate those very talents previously utilized, but within a spectrum of unknowing wariness, and to perfect the venue for the future.

Preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM is neither a science, nor a purely legal endeavor.  Many have tried to prepare an effective OPM Disability Retirement application, submitted it, and have had it denied, and perhaps even a second time with the same result; then, to turn to a craftsman for expert assistance.

There are both prophetic and poetic components which must be encompassed.  For example, creating the nexus between one’s medical condition and the positional duties one must perform constitutes the use of descriptive analogies which must be given the living force of vibrancy, where pain and incapacity must jump from the stoic pages upon which they are written (the poetic); while legal criteria must be straightforwardly addressed, such as the need to prove that one’s medical condition will exist for a minimum of 12 months (the prophetic aspect).

All in all, the corollary and convex/concave aspect of preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to OPM, must be carefully assembled.  It is, in the end, of poets and prophets for which we speak, and the innate need to bring out those characteristics from within; we all possess such inherent capabilities; we just didn’t know it.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Which Forms, How to Fill Them Out, and What to Put

Filling out forms is a part of life.  At some stage in our lives, we are required to complete forms.  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 positional duties as a Federal employee (which encompasses the full spectrum of positions, from secretaries, administrative assistants, to scientists, Information Technology Specialists, 1811 Law Enforcement Officers, etc.) or a U.S. Postal worker (including Craft employees, Managers, Postmasters, Supervisors, etc.), preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application may become a necessity.

Thus, the act of “form filling” must be confronted.  On computers, of course, if you have been completing online queries, the “autofill” option may be presented.  But the limitation of such an option, and the unavailability of that choice, should become readily apparent when attempting to complete the various “Standard Forms” required of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

For any remaining CSRS employees intending to file for OPM Disability Retirement benefits, the series embodied under the designation of SF 2801 must be completed, along with the SF 3112 series.  For all of the rest of the Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who came into Federal or Postal Service after around 1985, and who are under FERS, the SF 3107 series must be completed, and as well, the SF 3112 series of standard forms.

Thus has the question, “Which Forms?” been answered.  As for the remaining two questions:  How to fill them out and What to put —  the “how” is, to put it mildly, with care and trepidation; the “what to put” is too complex to elucidate in this forum.  The series of “informational” forms — SF 2801 series for CSRS employees and SF 3107 for FERS employees — are fairly straightforward (e.g., full name, date of birth, Social Security number, agency name and location, military service, etc.).

It all comes back to the SF 3112 series which becomes problematic — for that is where the Federal and Postal employee must “prove” the nexus between one’s positional duties and the medical conditions by which one is prevented from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties.  For that, the Federal and Postal employee must go “outside” of the boundaries of the forms themselves, and consult documentation obtained from the doctor, and make legal arguments based upon wise counsel and advice.

As with much of life, it is never as easy as a bureaucracy promises; indeed, the complexity of life is in the very bureaucratization of administrative forums.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire