Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: A Federal Issue

Most legal issues require representation by an attorney licensed in the state where the legal matter arises. Thus, divorce proceedings; accidents and torts of various kinds where the injury occurs; contracts where they are formulated and agreed upon; negligence actions where the act occurred, etc.

But for such administrative proceedings such as the preparation, formulation and filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the state from which the attorney received his or her legal license becomes irrelevant precisely because the practicing of Federal Disability Retirement law crosses all state lines, and does not involve any issues which are unique to a particular state at all, but rather is entirely a “Federal” issue involving Federal statutes, regulations, administrative agencies, etc.

Further, while many individuals may still express a “comfort” zone of desiring to “see” the attorney by visiting him or her in an office, such a personalized encounter may simply be an impracticality. Agencies span the entire country, and indeed, Federal workers are stationed throughout the globe in Europe, Asia, the Philippines, etc., and representation for such Federal issues as filing for, and obtaining, Federal and USPS Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is best done by an attorney who is experienced in the administrative process of law entailing all aspects of OPM Federal Disability Retirement law.

Fortunately, with modern technology, including email, fax, phone, express delivery, etc., close contact with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law is merely a “push-button” away. In an impractical universe, it is best to use the services of practical technology.

Federal Disability Retirement is a Federal issue, not a state one, and this should always be kept in mind when seeking representation in the matter.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Local Lawyers and Federal Issues

Federal and Postal employees are particularly susceptible to harassment and hostile work environments, for two primary reasons:  First, agencies (as reflected in terms of organic microcosms of collective individuals forming an organized unit, but represented by individual men and women) tend to view themselves as little fiefdoms, circled and protected by a moat of Federal Laws rarely understood by laymen, and further empowered by secrecy and the pervasive presence of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and Second, through a maze and web of complex Federal Statutes, Executive Orders and internal regulations, with layers upon layers of bureaucratic anomalies, an entity which remains shrouded with an obtuse, obscure administration of procedures barely comprehensible by those who run the agency.

The third reason, of course, is that despite Federal Agencies popping up throughout every city in every state, local lawyers have failed to make it their business to become knowledgeable about Federal issues, Federal laws, and their impact upon the local population.

This is especially true of Federal and Postal employees who are contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS.  Fortunately, however, Federal issues are not limited to the state, county or city in which a legal issue arises; therefore, as an attorney who practices OPM Disability Retirement, representation can occur from one state in assisting the Federal or Postal employee from any other state — including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Europe, Japan, etc.  Federal issues know no boundaries; that can be a negative thing in terms of state sovereignty; but in terms of being represented for a Federal Disability Retirement case, it has the advantage of being competently handled by those who know the system.

As deteriorating work environments often lead to an increase in medical issues, so the Federal or Postal employee must often fall back upon leaving the system by filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  Being susceptible to a power-centered entity often has that sort of result:  of greater medical problems; an exponential explosion of discontent; an increase in the need for rehabilitative care.

Fortunately for the Federal and Postal employee, there is the added employment benefit of Federal Disability Retirement.  Tap into that which exists for one’s advantage; the benefit is there for a reason — not the least of which is because of the stressful environment created by the behemoth called, the Federal Agency.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Verification Process

The process for verifying information is a procedural matter which is applied with a systematic methodology.  Verification is essentially a comparative analysis — comparing what is said in one sector of information, with claims made in another.  Consistency of information and claims is therefore what is crucial.  This general overview is applicable in nearly all areas — of law, of marketing, of scholarly endeavors, etc.  

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to maintain a consistency of claims and assertions.  Thus, there should be a logical and sequential order in the approach of putting together a Federal Disability Retirement application.  What is so surprising is how many Federal and Postal employees filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits will prepare and submit an Applicant’s Statement of Disability independent of a written medical report from one’s treating doctor.  

Assumptions and presumptions should be avoided at all costs (yes, and the cost of assuming or presuming can be high, indeed, with the consequence of a denial from OPM).  Of course, consistency and verification of information is applicable not only in the preparation of a Federal Disability Retirement application — the same methodology of verification should be applied as to claims by those who represent Federal and Postal employees.  

There is a lot of information “out there”, but whether and to what extent such information is accurate, useable, or even relevant, is a question to be asked and answered by the Federal or Postal employee preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: Decisions, Decisions

I am often asked questions by people of which I am unable to answer.  They are not questions concerning “the law” underlying Federal Disability Retirement, but rather questions which go to my “professional discretion” as an attorney in putting together a Federal Disability Retirement packet, prepared to go forth to the Office of Personnel Management. 

By “professional discretion” questions, I mean those questions which go to making decisions and choices concerning medical reports, percentage ratings received from the Veterans Administration; permanency ratings received from Second Opinion or Referee doctors, or the fact that one has reached “maximum medical improvement” and is now “permanent and stationary”, and whether to use such collateral sources of medical documentation in putting together a disability retirement packet. 

The practice of law is not all objective and straight-forward; part of the “practice” of law is of an art form, based upon one’s experience, and professional discretion sharpened by repetitive experiences in working with the Office of Personnel Management and in representing Federal and Postal employees before the Merit Systems Protection Board.  Further, there are some questions which I answer only for those whom I represent.  I am happy to provide general information about the process of filing for disability retirement.  For those whom I represent, however, I reserve for them the art of practicing Federal Disability Retirement law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire