FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Identifying the Substantive Significance

We all know people who meander; whether aimlessly, or with thoughtful purpose, but in a circuitous manner belying of deliberate direction.  Instead of focusing upon the subject matter discussed, perhaps the creative impulse within constantly distracts, and so the splatter and spew of words and sentences are never formulated into a singular track from Point A to Point B, but rather, like the dow jones graph of recent phenomena, directionless outputs traversing the entire spectrum of possible ideas to touch upon.

Such creative constituents of unconventional thought processes make for interesting lives; if everyone spoke in formulations of straight methodological contents, science would rule the universe, and statistical boredom would control the monotony of the daily drone.  But recognizing the substantive core of a subject can be necessary, at crucial moments; identification, formulation and focus upon that which is significant, as opposed to peripheral matters which may be of importance in a personal manner, but irrelevant in the context of the business world or technical endeavors, cannot always be overlooked or dismissed merely for the sake of upholding creativity or charm.

The bomb expert attempting to deactivate the explosive mechanism cannot wander in thought from the task at hand; identification of that which is substantively significant must always be the primary focus of the detail, and wavering from that course of thought-process may have more than mere theoretical consequences and repercussions.

For the Federal employee and the U.S. Postal worker who suffers 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 in the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, the need to file for a Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, requires a level of focus, concentration, and capacity to identify the core issues to be discussed, and to create the proper legal nexus which satisfies the multiple criteria required in order to meet the eligibility mandates delineated by OPM regulations and laws.

As with every endeavor of life, preparing, formulating and filing for Federal and Postal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM is never merely a logical algorithm of mathematical precision; yes, it involves a level of creativity, especially because it must inform the OPM specialist of the narrative of the medical condition and its impact upon one’s professional and personal life.  But in the end, the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker must be able to identify the substantive significance of the facts, the law, and the coexisting intersection and interplay between the two, in formulating an effective Statement of Disability as prepared on SF 3112A.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Medical Retirement: The language of law

Wittgenstein recognized that there exists various forms of languages within a community of a shared language — with words everyone understood, sentences all were familiar with, but the usage and meaning of which were unique to a particular group or set of individuals.  Such comity of meanings and esoteric application of language were designated as “language games”.  Information Technology groups have their own set of insulated meanings; advertising agents, insurance companies, and children who form an exclusive club may formulate within-community code words exclusive to the group alone, and alien to all around.

What, then, is the language of law?  Certainly, analogy and hypothetical models of similar situations and transactions are a part of it; and the methodology of argumentation is to show the familiarity of classes of subject-matter issues and identical-sounding situations which penetrate the judge’s capacity to accept and anticipate precedent-setting citations of prior acts.  Why the language game of the legal arena accepts as a primary basis of interaction similar-sounding prior fact-scenarios is often a mystery to “outsiders” (i.e., non-lawyers), and confounds with frustration the enormous expenditure of time and money in engaging such circuitous narratives of persuasive argumentation.

What about my case?  What difference does it make whether or not a decades-old case applies in an analogical manner to the facts at hand?  But that is precisely the point of the language of law; for, it is consistency of application and perpetuation of stability which makes for reverence for “the law”.  Arbitrariness and malleability creates suspicion of motives, and justice requires the fair constancy of applying “the law”.

This is important to understand in all arenas of the “language game of law”, and for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who may need to entertain the potentiality for 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, the entrance into “Administrative Law” (which is what filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM falls under) is no different.

Precedent-setting cases develop over decades and epochs of lifetimes; and whether the OPM Disability Retirement applicant is aware of it or not, the compendium of rules, regulations and decision-setting conclusions are all guided by, constricted within, and influenced throughout, by prior cases handed down by judicial opinions rendered “on high” by administrative law judges and Federal Court of Appeals mandates.

Should case laws be cited in the submission of a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application?  As the law is the hinge upon which society survives, so the question of persuasive argumentation may live or die based upon the vocalization of precedents.  But always remember that the language of law is a specific type of language game, and the exclusive club of legalese requires some training of usage, where applicability may sound like gobbledygook unless formulated with an ear towards coherence within the insular language game of law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire