Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Work Left Undone

That is why gardening and other similar endeavors help to calm the human mind; for, like the Zen of human existence, projects which have a starting point and end with results that can be observed with gratifying exclamations — like a rock garden finished and allowed to visibly appreciate — is a point in life which has been “done”.

Most of life’s work is that which is left undone — the son or daughter who left home too early; projects of which you participate in only a portion of; things you wanted to say but never had a chance to; dreams dreamed of but left as mere vestiges of feeble attempts left unfinished; and so we carry on with out lives, always with a detritus of abandoned work left undone.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have come to a point in their medical conditions where there now exists an incompatibility between work and health, it may indeed be difficult to leave the work behind — work left undone.  But there is still the future to consider: of work which still can be done; of prioritizing the primary work left undone — your health.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, and consider that the Federal work left undone can always be picked up by someone else, whereas your health cannot.

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 Attorney Help: The Bifurcated Worker

It is a commonplace event — of bifurcated lives.  Was it always that way?  When there were actually towns and communities where people really knew one another; of that paradise-like vision, where transiency was unknown and stability based the norm?

We have our “work life”, bifurcated from our “personal life”.  We can sit in sub-divided offices, partitioned and designed by a “civil space engineer” who has allocated a specific area of work space which is “yours” as opposed to the “other” person.  We can now telework and not even have to be partitioned in bodily space and time.

However the arrangements are made, work can go on for years and years without ever knowing the personal life of the person with whom we work.  Tom comes in each day and we only know of his “professional” side.  Susan enters the office and we know nothing about the previous 16 or so hours of her disappearance.  For, we have accepted the state of the bifurcated worker, and some would say that such a state of knowledge is a “good” thing — for, in the end, we want to preserve the sanctity of privacy itself.

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, the issue of who has access and who is allowed to have access, to sensitive medical information, is always of concern.

In order to file for Federal Employee Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, however, some amount of access must be given; for, to file for OPM Disability Retirement is to cross over and violate the wall of the bifurcated worker.

In order to maneuver successful through the complex maze of such issues involving sensitive medical information, contact a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Employee Disability Retirement application under FERS, with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, where the bifurcated worker must further bifurcate the personal from the professional.

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.

 

Attorney Representation for Denied OPM Disability Claims: The Appearance of Substance

It is like a Jonathan Franzen novel (apologies to those who are fans of his), as opposed to a Hemingway masterpiece (is the bias too obvious by merely connecting “novel” to the first writer as opposed to “masterpiece” to the second?).  The fluff is fairly obvious.  Pages after pages of meandering nothingness, wondering where the story is going, what the plot is, why it is that one is trying to make one’s way through a long and meaningless road?

The appearance of substance is always a problem.  How does one gauge it?  It is like the old adage of throwing away good money after bad — after a long investment of time in trying to read it, you hate to give up before you get to the end.

OPM denials in a FERS Disability Retirement case often “feels” like that — of long extrapolated regurgitations from medical records, then at the end, a mere statement: “It has not been shown that you suffer from a medical condition which prevents you from performing the essential elements of your position”.

So, either one of two things is going on:  Either the previously-quoted extrapolations self-evidently speak form themselves, or the OPM Medical Specialist simply wants an appearance of substance without having to explain or discuss the relevance of the extrapolated paragraphs.  Volume is not the same as substance; just compare a balloon as opposed to a boulder sitting atop a mountain in Colorado.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have received a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for his or her Federal Disability Retirement application, contact an OPM Medical Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider that the appearance of substance is no substitute for a substantive legal rebuttal.

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 Government Employee Disability Retirement: “Difficult”

It is not the same as “unable to”, or even one of “incompatibility”; rather, it merely means that here are some impediments, but if one’s performance ratings are still fully successful, then it shows that — despite being “difficult” — the Federal or Postal worker is still able to perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job.

To qualify for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, certain legal criteria have to be met, and the mere fact that it is becoming increasingly “difficult” to satisfy that criteria does not mean that you would qualify.  Having “difficulty” doing your job, but still being able to do it, means that you are still performing all of the essential elements of your job.

If your agency thinks that you are doing a great job by giving you “fully successful” performance reviews, then where is your argument that you are unable to perform all of the essential elements of your job?  Yes, yes, I know — the question often asked is, “Do I have to end up in a wheelchair before I can file for FERS Disability Retirement benefits”?  No, not quite; but the mere fact that you are having “difficulties” doing your job, but are still doing it, may not be enough.

There is a middle ground, a “flash point” that goes slightly beyond “difficult” but somewhat before becoming wheelchair bound, where the criteria of “incompatibility” comes into play.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and discuss the legal ramifications of where you might be in the process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective FERS Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Die Trying

We hear about that — of people dying while in the process of trying to work.  We push ourselves daily because we have no choice but to bear the unbearable, as if the work we do is more important than life itself.  We give lip-service to so much pablum — that “life is sacred”; that we live in a “caring society”; that “in the end”, what matters are “relationships” and not material possessions, etc.

But do we believe it?  What constitutes and validates “believing” in something as opposed to not?  Is it to simply assert and declare without such words ever being tested, or can “belief” turn into “true belief” only after an action has followed a proposition?

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 his or her Federal Job, the question that must be raised is whether it is all 
“worth it”, isn’t it?

Whether continuing on towards that goal of “retirement” can be achieved; if it is worthwhile to die trying — or, is Federal Disability Retirement an option to consider?  Certainly, to “die trying” can be a noble effort, but only if the goal to achieve possesses some inherently noble characteristics.  At the end of that effort, what will be the reward?

OPM Disability Retirement is a benefit accorded to all Federal and Postal employees under FERS when it becomes clear that a medical condition is no longer compatible with continuation in the job, or any similar job.  Seek the counsel and advice of an experienced attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law before forging ahead, lest you decide to ignore all of the symptoms of a declining health resulting in the tragic result where whispers and shaking heads would declare in a low voice, “Well, he died trying!”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Foreboding Sense

Are such “feelings” valid?  Does it even make any sense to apply the criteria of validity to a “feeling”, or are there circumstances where a foreboding sense of things can be accepted as a confirmed truth?  Does an outcome-based application of the criteria determine the validity of a feeling?

Say, for example, an individual possesses a 100% success rate in confirming the truth of a foreboding sense — does it validate the feeling?  Or is it based upon the foreboding sense that is declared to others who can confirm it?

A foreboding sense of things to come can, indeed, be valid, both as an outcome-based, retrospective confirmation as well as a singular instance of validity based upon a person’s experience.  For, just as statistical analysis cannot refute the probability of something happening the next time (ask a person who was actually attacked by a shark, or hit by lightening, as to whether the statistical improbability of an event makes any sense), so a person’s foreboding sense of things to come can never be mollified until the passing of a non-occurrence.

Such foreboding, however, can sometimes be assuaged and tempered by greater knowledge gained, and for Federal and Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition where the medical condition is beginning to impact one’s ability and capacity to continue remaining employed with the Federal Agency, it may be time to consult with an attorney to discuss the possibility of filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

A foreboding sense of an impending event may be validated by an outcome-based perspective; or, it may be a subconscious capacity to sense something that our conscious senses are unable to quantify.  But of whatever the source, it is often a good idea to confirm the validity of such a foreboding sense, and for Federal or Postal employees who have a foreboding sense of one’s circumstances because of a medical condition, the assuaging potion of choice is to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The prerequisite of thought

What constitutes “thought” and fails to satisfy the allegation that one has not engaged in it?

Take the following example: A young man who is courting a young woman buys a bouquet of flowers on his way home, but stops by at her place just to say hello.  She — seeing the flowers — declares, “Oh, how thoughtful of you.”  He sheepishly smiles and nods his head, but in reality the flowers were to spruce up his own apartment.  He explains this to the young woman, and she turns a smile into its opposite — a frown — and reverses her opinion, telling the cad how “thoughtless” he is being.

In reality, he had done no such thing — he had, in fact, “thought” about it, only not in the sequence that the young woman had desired.  Yet, he is charged with being “thoughtless” — and one could argue that such a charge is applicable in that he should have “thought about it” before stopping by her place, and instead should have gone ahead and followed a route straight home.

Or, of another example: Say you are debating a point with another individual, or a group of individuals, and someone during the course of your monologue says, “It is clear that you haven’t thought about it.” What, precisely, does that allegation mean and imply?  Would it have made any difference if you had previously taken yourself into a corner, sat for an hour or two reflectively posed like the famous statue by Rodin’s “The Thinker”, chin upon knuckle in a reflective pose of self-absorption — then come back to engage in the discussion?

What if your contribution to the conversation included as great an expanse of idiocy as if you had not “thought about it” — but the mere fact that you had sat for a couple of hours, or perhaps a weeklong sojourn of contemplative solitude — does it make a difference?  Isn’t “thinking about it” often done in the course of give-and-take, during the conversation engaged, as opposed to being lost in one’s own mind?

Further, isn’t singularity and isolation of “thinking” often the wrong approach, inasmuch as you may be missing something, have inadequate information, illogical in the process because of selfish interests unrecognizable, and therefore the best kind of thinking often involves debate, countering opinions and other’s input, as opposed to the isolationism of “The Thinker”?

Would it make sense to ask a dozen or so physicists to “solve the mystery of the universe” by gathering them together, then making each sit in a corner and “think about it”, as opposed to engaging them in a “give-and-take” brainstorming session?  Isn’t much of thinking “done” by engagement with others, as opposed to a soliloquy of isolationism?  If so, then why is there too often a prerequisite of thought?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have “thought” about filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the first and most important step in making the “right” decision may not be by engaging in an isolationism of “thinking about it”, but by consulting with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law.

There is no prerequisite of thought in picking up the telephone and having an initial, free consultation with an attorney to discuss the particulars of your case, and engaging in the thoughtful exercise of considering OPM Disability Retirement by actively participating in the productive modality of thinking.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: The chaos of life

Of masochism, there are indeed some who purport to invite the chaos of life, and actually enjoy it, relish in it and thrive in it.  Its opposite is considered monotonous, lacking of artistic content and without the excitement of unpredictability.  Yet, even those who thrive within the chaos of life will often need that period of respite, whether with a quiet moment of reflection, a night of reading beside a crackling fire, or just dozing in front of the drone of a television.

EMT personnel often require such a personality trait; firemen, law enforcement officers, and nowadays, teachers, professors and other educators, if only because the chaos that unruly and undisciplined children, teenagers and young adults bring into the classroom.

Perhaps it was a childhood upbringing; it is often said by learned psychologists that battered people tend to themselves batter upon reaching maturity, because they find solace in the comfort of that which they are familiar, and so the behaviors they learned and were imprinted upon as a child are the very patterns that are comforting; and thus does the vicious cycle of life – such as the chaos of life – recur and regenerate, only to imprint the same cycle upon the next generation.

Those who sincerely crave the very opposite – of a regularity in monotony of patterns predictable in their characteristic of non-change – are often criticized for failing to be able to “deal” with the chaos of life, and so the argument goes that those who thrive upon the chaos of life are better prepared for the vicissitudes of life’s misgivings.

Medical conditions comprise a sort of chaos of life, but whether one is “well-prepared” for it or not, it is something that must be “dealt” with.  It is, in the end, doubtful whether a person’s life prior to the entrance and introduction of a medical condition can adequately prepare one to “deal with it”.

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 the Federal or Postal job, part of the process in dealing with such a chaos of life is to prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

In such a case, instead of dealing with the chaos of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application yourself, you may want to consider hiring an attorney who specializes in such legal matters.

In this vast universe that includes the encumbrances deemed the chaos of life, we must all make choices as to which portion of the chaos we want to personally handle; for, in the end, the chaos of life, how we handle it and what benefit accrues from it will all be determined by the outcome of the event – and for Federal and Postal employees, that outcome-based perspective is the resulting approval by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on a Federal Disability Retirement claim, where once the approval is obtained, the chaos of life may be turned into a respite of relief.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement for FERS Employees: Why we endure

Why, indeed?  We have all come to a point where we have just had it, and want to “chuck it all” in – into what, we often only have an obscure sense, or none at all, but it is the feeling of having reached a pinnacle of despair and those proverbial depths of despondency.  There is, fortunately or unfortunately, no hidden corner or secret room to which we can scurry away to, never to be seen again, remain unnoticed and left without the troubles of the day.

Why do we endure?  Because others depend upon us; because to do otherwise would disappoint those we care for; by duty and obligations which compel our actions and form our thoughts; to avoid a sense of guilt; because life isn’t all those doldrums we sometimes complain of, but can sometimes have a spark of sunshine that makes it worthwhile; and for a host of multiple other reasons that we may not think of at this moment, but know to exist because we have continued to endure in the face of challenges and tumults of life that, for some, would constitute that breaking point, but for those still “in the race” and fighting “in the thick” of things (whatever those pithy and inane sayings of trite trollops really mean), we just continue to trudge along.

For some, perhaps the question of “why” never comes up – and like dullards who are happy to remain in the sullenness of life’s garbage pits, ignorant bliss is the best state to be in, while those who constantly complain about the minor irritants of life’s misgivings never stop to smell the roses along the way (there, we have managed to state the penultimate triteness of linguistic pithiness).

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who ask the same question in the face of medical conditions experienced and suffered, it takes on a new meaning when workplace harassment begins to intensify, especially because the benefit of filing for Federal Disability Retirement is there precisely in those circumstances such that the “why” is answered when a Federal or Postal employee can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job.  It is precisely so that the Federal or Postal employee would not have to endure the pain, suffering or the cognitive decline in direct connection and nexus to the essential elements of a Federal or Postal employee’s official position in the Federal or Postal sector, that OPM Disability Retirement benefits are offered and able to be secured.

While filing with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset is a long and arduous bureaucratic process, nevertheless, filing a Federal Disability Retirement application is that avenue and course of action that answers the very question we sometimes must ponder and posit: Why we endure?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Government Disability Retirement: The Best of Mediocrity

There is an overriding principle that, where excellence is sought, higher expectations are exceeded.  Acceptance of a given human condition and resignation to that which is less than the best, is to embrace the heart of banality and to reject that august status reserved for the human species, of being above the animals and just below the angels.

There is a syndrome for that; of thinking and believing that one’s situation is all that one can hope for, and this resignation to life’s circumstances occurs when mediocrity becomes the meddlesome cousin to dashed hopes and dreams, and when the toxicity of one’s surrounding environment will not widen the narrow imaginations once the muddle of the middle prevails upon human potentiality.

It is like the parental fight which tumbles unchecked into an ugly shouting match of epithets and unbridled accusations of meanness and vicious ferocity, flung at each other out of frustration and fatigue, and then the realization that the children are watching, ever so observant, and you ask, Who are the grownups in this morass?  Where did the emperor’s clothes go?  What happens to a couple when there are no longer control mechanisms and neighbor’s noses to sniff the air for scandal, and when destruction of stability is accepted, any and all sense of obligations are thrown out the proverbial window, and the visiting aunt is no longer there to lend a critical eye, but instead has been shuttled to a nursing home where decay, death and dementia of purposeless existence remains in the antiseptic stench of lifelines and plastic tubes draining the life out of a society’s level of excellence?  We accept our “station in life” when hope is vanishing in the degeneration of societal decay.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who sense this morass of loss, especially when a medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional duties and there comes a recognition that one must prepare, formulate and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the time to shed tears for the loss of mediocrity comes when affirmative steps are taken to recognize that there can be something “more” than merely the best of mediocrity.

Never think that filing for and obtaining a Federal Disability Retirement annuity is merely to accept “less”; rather, it is a recognition that there is an inconsistency between the medical condition one suffers from, and the limited positional duties of the Federal or Postal job for which one is positioned.  There can be further opportunities for work and vocational advancement in another job in the private sector, while still retaining one’s Federal OPM Disability Retirement annuity (as long as the type of job one chooses to engage in is somewhat substantively distinguishable, and if one remains within the “80% rule” of earned income).

The best of mediocrity is to accept the loss of one’s Federal job or Postal work, and to not see that the proverbial corner one cannot yet view, is but road yet untaken, an opportunity unseen, and a future to behold as the golden dust of an angel’s flight may yet sprinkle upon elevating the best of mediocrity into a stratosphere of excellence, beginning with preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire