FERS Disability Retirement Law: Time and a Flower

No one can replace Jim Croce’s classic, Time in a Bottle.  The lyrics are so beautifully written:

If I could save time in a bottle
The first thing that I’d like to do
Is to save every day ’til eternity passes away
Just to spend them with you

It describes the conceptual complexity of so much — of time; of eternity; of love; of the imagery of a bottle adrift at sea; of a devotion to a special someone.  And of time and a flower — of the age-old adage that a flower represents a moment in time where a pause to reflect, a hesitation of a reminder, of beauty in nature which reminds us that this fast-paced world cannot abide in eternity without the momentary realization of transcendent aesthetics, of form and beauty which betrays our mortality, and of the need within every human being to be awed by an inviolable encounter with Being.

It is the simplicity of contrasts — of the complexity of time and the beauty of a flower.  When do we ever have time, anymore, to enjoy simplicity?

This is a complex world, full of strife and stresses.  The sad reality is that we have time only to smell the roses when we are forced to — as when a medical condition forces the Federal or Postal employee to slow down, to not take things for granted.

Federal Disability Retirement under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) becomes the go-to option when time no longer allows for the Federal Gov. employee to consider the beauty of a flower.

Contact a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider Time and a Flower or, better yet, listen to the original — Time in a Bottle, by Jim Croce.

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 Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Retirement: Myth of the Unbiased

The “uninterested” or “unbiased” party — does such an entity even exist?  In parochial terms, it is to say that “X has no skin in the game” — meaning thereby that an individual has no preference, no “money placed as a bet” on either team; has never expressed any weighted opinion as to one or the other — in other words, he or she is an “unbiased” participant.

But there are other factors beyond whether or not a person expresses a preference, are there not?  Of an irrational dislike of one over the other; of a self-interested desire to “win” by picking one over the other; or perhaps of simply being bored and wanting to be a contrarian by choosing one over the other.

Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement application before a “medical specialist” at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, to identify an OPM reviewer as someone who is unbiased or uninterested, is to miss the point.  Yes, allegedly, OPM is supposed to be unbiased and uninterested, and merely apply the law and review a Federal Disability Retirement case in an objective manner.

The reality is quite different, however, because of the complexity of the human psyche involving motives, unstated intentions and deep-seated psychological needs.  What can be done about it?  Nothing, really — other than to point out the errors, the lack of logic, and apply the law — and counter any denial or preempt a denial by submitting a legal memorandum which is truly unbiased.

Contact a disability attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and maintain a semblance of objectivity in order to enhance your chances of winning your Federal Disability Retirement benefits 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.

 

Long Term Disabilities in Federal & Postal Employees: The Comma

Why was it invented?  Just as in a verbal encounter, the pause which ensues — if only to gasp for breath by a non-stopping, constantly-talking individual (and we all know of one, or several) — allows for a break in thought, a parenthetical phrase, or a dependent clause to surface and become recognized — we can discern the segments of a sentence without the existence of the comma.

Faulkner recognized this; Joyce was a master of it; and so, if it is an irrelevancy, why have we become so dependent upon it — that mere curve of a grammatical mark, a swish upon a period, a wink upon a dot?

In life, the comma is the weekend, the respite to revive us from the doldrums and sorrows of the working week; it is the child who awakens and cries out for a moment of peace from an otherwise tumultuous life of a family in distress; and it is the bark of a dog and a howl of a refrain, lonely in its echoing reverberations of a reminded past.

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 and essential duties, the comma represents that period of thought which prompts the call to a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement under FERS: Can I last until retirement?  Will my body hold up?  Will I be able to bear the stresses?  Should I?

The answer: Yes — without the comma.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Medical Retirement under FERS & CSRS: Inversion thinking

The dictionary definition often refers to a “reversal” of an opinion, position, order of sequence or relationships between entities, but may also connote the grammatical alteration of the normal sequence in a sentence, such as placement of a verb before its subject.

In modernity, we often hear about the admonishment to “think outside of the box” – and advertisements often try to play upon this concept by declaring some grand secret that is only available to a limited number of people who are smart enough to call in to the station within the next 5 seconds, lest the opportunity of a lifetime be lost (ignoring the fact, of course, as you are sitting singularly in the confined space of your car listening to the radio, that there are tens of thousands of other listeners who similarly have the mistaken belief that being alone in a vehicle listening does not mean the same thing as being the only person hearing the announcement).

The fact of the matter is, that once a person begins to be told to “think outside of the box”, it is already too late; for, inversion thinking must occur prior to everyone else engaging in the herd-mentality of being different.  Being different means doing so before everyone else has similarly become different, which is to say that everyone becomes the same.  At that point, one must try and become different from the collective differences already alluded to, and in so doing, it is already likely that many other people have already considered the next course of mutation and followed a similar suit; and so it goes.

Inversion thinking is just a different way of thinking outside the box; or, one might say, it is the same as thinking outside of the box, only stated in a different way.  We all like to think of ourselves as unique and singular, when in fact most of us are mere figments of an aggregated collectivism.

We all go to the same type of schools; we listen to the radio programs within the restricted airwaves of our communities or at least until the satellite programs expire and the constant flood of offers to extend become so annoying that we go ahead and give that credit card number to pay for programs we never listen to; and the spectrum of information we are bombarded with – from television to movies, internet and Facebook, et al – makes herds of us rather than mavericks upon the great plains of the creative mind.

We are told as we are growing up, how unique and “special” we are, but in the end, inversion thinking is a phenomena that rarely occurs.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering 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, it is often the thought of being “different” that prevents the Federal or Postal employee from taking that “next step”.  Be not fooled, however; for, from the perspective of the Federal Agency and the U.S. Postal Service, you have already been targeted as “different” because of your medical condition.

Inversion thinking requires taking that next step, and to think “outside of the box”, and preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application is that distinguishing feature of human activity that will require a different kind of approach in order to step into the uncertainty of one’s future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Life’s Work

There is, then, the job or career we undertake (the distinction between the two is often lost, and depends in large part upon a multiplicity of factors, including length of commitment, opportunity within a given field for growth and advancement; whether any qualifications, certifications or professional degrees are required, etc.); and then, the conditions and context of participating in a greater culture of our choosing, including where we live, with whom we live, what social circles we expand into; as well as how we interact with the extended community surrounding us, and whether we even decide to abide by the rules, laws and limitations imposed by society.

The former constitutes the work we engage during our lifetimes; the latter, the macro-aspect of the work generally confronted during a lifetime.  We often confuse the two.  The conundrum and internal turmoil comes about because so much of the latter often depends upon the success of the former.  Without the wealth amassed through the work of labor, we become limited in the choices we have in the work of living; thus do some choose a life of crime or cheating, as a means of shortcutting and supplementing the former for the latter.  And when the work of labor is cut short, or somehow interrupted, one realizes the impact upon the greater work of life, and must adjust accordingly.

For the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s work or career, the choice to leave the Federal sector is a difficult one, and not just because of the financial considerations which reverberate upon the greater work of living.  Often, the choice to 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, is paused for reflection, procrastination and further delay, because the two concentric circles of life have overlapped to such an exponential degree that one cannot easily be bifurcated from the other.

One’s work of labor involved the social circle; it intersected with the greater percentage of daily living; the meaning and teleological motivation was commingled; even some of the neighbors work in the same neighborhood, just down the street, in our town (yes, it is an unabashed reference to Thornton Wilder’s famous play), or perhaps even next door; so, how can I face a change from the work of labor, without confronting the greater vicissitude in the work of life? But then, there is that medical condition, and it is always the interrupting reality of the medical condition which must, by necessity, be focused upon.

Better to make decisions now, when one has the option to do so concerning the work of labor, lest the limitations are imposed by others, which then can have irreparable consequential reverberations upon the greater work of living.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement: Anonymity of the Routine

Most people prefer anonymity; although, in more recent years, the hunt for one’s five minutes of fame by “hook or by crook”, whether to impose, intrude, push through, etc., and wave in front of a camera, or to perform some demeaning act to attract a byline in the Guinness Book of Records, has become a prevalence beyond mere happenstance exception.  Perhaps it is the age of Youtube, of selfie images and the need to see one’s portrait, name or reference reflected in the public domain, which belies the common quest for the mundane.

There was once upon a time when discretion and the desire for privacy pervaded; now, the anonymity of the routine is mere boredom, and the eternal quest for admiration, recognition, even ignoble acknowledgment, is preferable and actively sought.

For bureaucratic purposes, however, attempting to define by deliberate exceptionality, can be a two-edged sword.  For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, of course one wants to submit an OPM Disability application which “stands out” beyond the mere routine.  But that depends upon how one characterizes and defines that which is “routine”.

Medical conditions are unique by inherent definitional standards; and to “stand out” can take on multiple connotations. Certainly, excellence of preparation and formulation should be the overarching standard in the compilation and presentation of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application, submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.   But if by “being out of the mainstream”, one attempts to bring in irrelevant or immaterial facts or allegations which shock or otherwise disrupt merely for the sake of “standing out”, then the preferable methodology is to remain with the anonymity of the routine.

Federal Disability Retirement is a compensatory benefit which must be proven with medical facts, criteria-based argumentation, and a solid compendium of legal bridges established through coherence of information.

While the rest of the world may seek attention and approval, for the Federal or Postal employee preparing to submit an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through OPM, it is the anonymity of the routine, prepared through excellence of information and cogency of argumentation, which is preferable to the publicity stunts of last year’s forgotten tirades.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Attorney: Formulating the Effective Case

Is it inherently presupposed that a case to be formulated is one which should be “effective”?  By the insertion of that term, of course, it immediately implies a retrospective vantage point — an “ends” to “means” view of an outcome-based approach.

If a Federal or Postal employee who files for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, receives a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, one assumes that the case was not “effectively” formulated.  On the other hand, if an approval is received from OPM, one need not consider any such issue, but merely moves on to the “when” phase — as in, “When am I going to get paid“?

Outcome-based formulation of a case is never an unwise approach; but the mere fact that a denial is issued by OPM after reviewing a given Federal Disability Retirement application, does not mean that the case itself was not originally “effective” in the formulation and submission.

There are OPM “administrative specialists” who systematically deny cases; certain others who require a higher standard of proof beyond what the law mandates; and even those who extrapolate clear evidence in a denial which establishes eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement, but nevertheless concludes with a disapproval.  Such arbitrary outcomes may seem unfair and unwarranted, but it is a reality which must be faced.

In light of this, the positive outlook to embrace is the fact that Federal OPM Disability Retirement is an administrative process with multiple stages for appeals and additional bites at the proverbial apple.

From the outset, it is always a good idea to carefully prepare, formulate and file an “effective” case; but the mere fact that the first attempt fails to achieve the outcome desired, does not diminish or extinguish the positive assessment reached at the outset when first the OPM Disability Retirement packet was submitted; rather, it just means that additional proof and evidentiary addendum must be forthcoming to satisfy the bureaucratic process of further effectuating the efficacy of an already-effective case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire