Federal Disability Retirement Law: Not Knowing

Not knowing is not the same as not wanting to know; and, moreover, it is distinct from knowing but ignoring the knowledge and refusing to make the connections necessary and easily recognizable, and perhaps even claiming to not know.

Finding a wad of hundred-dollar bills on the sidewalk, picking it up and pocketing it, then claiming to not know how it got there, may be a justified position to assume — unless, of course, you saw who dropped it but failed to act upon it.  What if you saw who dropped it, didn’t know who the person was, and didn’t try and catch the person before the person left?  Does it make a difference?

Not knowing and claiming to not know are two different things.  In law, however, whether you did not know or were not informed in order to know, is a distinction without a difference.  The phrase, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” is generally applicable, and in Federal Disability Retirement Law, it applies strictly.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that you may be entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits, contact an experienced lawyer who knows the Law so that not knowing the law will not prejudice you.

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 & Postal Employee Medical Retirement: The Mistake Unrecognized

We can always quibble about what constitutes a “mistake” — but, generally, there are circumstances described which fall into the center of the conceptual definition, those which border on the periphery, and then the remainder which, while having a consensus that they stray outside of the boundaries, nevertheless are often described as a “mistake”, but only in a retrospective manner.

Examples: A man is driving down a road and makes a left turn instead of a right.  He thought he knew where he was going, but clearly did not.  He made a mistake.  A clerk in an ice cream store thought the customer said, “Give me a scoop of Godzilla Ice Cream” — a specialty of the shop comprised of chocolate and large fudge bits. Instead, the customer had said, “Give me a scoop of Vanilla Ice Cream.”  In the din of the noisiness, the clerk misheard and made a mistake.

An individual purchases some stolen items from a street vendor.  She suspects that they are stolen, but because of the extraordinary price for which the items are aggregately offered, represses such thoughts and agrees to the purchase.  Later, the police raid the woman’s home and confiscate the property.  Was it a “mistake”?  In what way?

Here are several: It was a mistake to repress the suspicions aroused; it was a mistake to purchase such items from a street vendor; it was a mistake to fail to connect the dots of illogic; but had the person never been caught, and the value of the items later increased a hundredfold and was legitimately sold at Sothebys for an eye-opening profit, would the transaction be characterized as a “mistake”?

And finally: A similar transactional relationship; but let’s change the hypothetical somewhat.  In the new scenario, the person about to engage in the transaction asks for advice before concluding the deal.  Everyone tells him, “Don’t do it.  It is clearly fenced goods.”  A friend — a retired police officer — gives the following advice: “You know it’s gotta be stolen. You can be arrested for participating in receiving of stolen goods.  Don’t do it.” Multiple family members say t he same thing.  The person goes ahead and attempts to close the deal and, in the process, the police raid the establishment, charge the individual and place him in jail.  Was it a “mistake”?

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 — don’t make the mistake of unrecognized scenarios.

Contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and avoid those “mistakes” which are clearly there and which can — and will — defeat a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Proof and Knowledge

The two go hand in hand.  That, in and of itself — of “going hand in hand” — is a peculiar metaphor; for, like couples holding hands while taking a walk in the proverbial park, do hands necessarily have to be held in order for comity to be established?  Can a person, for example, have proof without knowledge or, conversely, knowledge without proof?

If a bloodied knife is picked up beside a dead body, can a person declare, “I have proof!”  Yes, but proof of what?  Perhaps that the dead person died from a knife wound; or that the owner of the weapon has etched his or her initials upon the handle of the implements, etc.  But as to “whodunit” — the weapon itself may now be the crucial piece of evidence.  But what of “knowledge”?

Again, it would be different if the same person, taking the identical hypothetical, declared: “I know who did it — that person there!”  [As the accusing individual points to a shrouded man standing afar in the crowd, hat tilted to shadow his face, hunched in an oversized raincoat and furtively attempting to disappear into the crowd].

So one now has “knowledge”, and perhaps even “proof” (i.e., fingerprints on the knife; eyewitnesses who identify the man in the raincoat as the guilty party; video of the act itself, caught by a British CCTV camera that was recording in the middle of nowhere — by the way, how in the world do the British get away with so many surveillance cameras?).

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal employees who are considering preparing and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, remember that Proof and Knowledge must, indeed, go “hand in hand” in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Proof is not just one’s medical condition; it must include a showing of a verifiable deficiency and a nexus to one’s job elements; and knowledge is not just “knowing” that one is disabled — it must include meeting all of the multiple criteria of the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement.

Thus, you may already have the “proof”, but you should consult an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law in order to gather the “knowledge” necessary to qualify for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The tenuous seat

It may be that where you are sitting, you have that constant sense of insecurity and angst; that the legs that are currently holding you upon the wooden seat are unstable, questionable, perhaps even possessing a history of prior breakage and collapse.  Is the position you hold flimsy, weak, subject to the winds of change and the moods that prevail?

Life isn’t supposed to be that way; or so we are taught from a young age.  There are “rules of the game”; people “have to” abide by certain unspoken (or openly declared) constrictors of behavioral acceptability; and yet, the rule-breakers seem always to be able to flaunt the exceptions and sidestep, overstep and trample upon the boundaries that everyone else must abide by.

The tenuous seat is the one that the person sensitive of and susceptible to the whims of societal constructs so diligently struggles to abide by; it is the vulnerable who always pays the price, while the brash and uncaring go on and pass by everyone else.  The tenuous seat is the one that the ordinary person sits upon; then, when a medical condition comes along and weakens the structural foundations even further, the very wobbling legs that barely withstood the vicissitudes of time begin to fracture and reveal their internal fissures.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have a sense of sitting in the tenuous seat because the impact of the medical condition is beginning to take its toll, it is time to make plans to secure a more stable future — or, metaphorically, to consider sitting in another chair.

The tenuous seat is the one you have been sitting in for these past several years, and it is time to play the rules of the game of musical chairs, and to find the one that will “fit” the seat of your pants, by preparing, formulating and filing 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.

The tenuous seat is the one that needs repair, and the one that needs repair is also the one that needs replacement.  When life’s chair that once provided a sense of stability and rest begins to wobble with the changes of time, it is an indication that the next step in the musical chairs of life’s stormy periods calls upon the Federal or Postal employee to initiate the steps to embrace the change; it is time to consult with an attorney who specializes exclusively in Federal Disability Retirement law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal and Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Preponderance of the Evidence

It is the legal standard by which civil (non-criminal) adjudications are based upon, and whether or not it can be rationally demarcated as against other standards – i.e., “Clear and convincing evidence” or “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is a question for legal theorists and the schools rendered under the general aegis of, “The Philosophy of Law” – is a valid question in and of itself.

For, we can dress prettily and puff up the definition of what it all means, and bifurcate and explain how the three standards are distinct and differentiated by the increasing severity of the criteria to be applied, but in the end, the juror who goes back into the room to consider the guilt or innocence, the fault or apportioned negligence, is entirely subjective.

For, is there a clear demarcation as to what “reasonable” is?  Can one delineate what is “clear” to one and “convincing” to another?  If a witness has perfect recall and a persuasive manner of telling a “story”, if one juror blurts out, “Oh, but his eye twitched and he was clearly lying through his teeth!” – what then?  And the concept that one side has a “preponderance of the evidence”, or to put it in different but equally confusing terms like “more likely than not” or “the greater weight of truth” – what do all of these analogies and metaphors mean, in the end?

Surely, there are the “easy” cases – an entire football stadium who saw a man shoot another, and the assailant who confesses to the murder; these, we can say are “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but even then, a single juror who has a beef against societal constrains can “nullify” a verdict by holding out.  So, what is the answer (or, for some who are still confused, “what is the question”)?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are entering the legal arena of preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the expectation, of course, is that the OPM Medical Retirement application will be approved at the first or second stages of the process – i.e., at the Initial Stage of filing a Federal Disability Retirement application with OPM, or at the “Reconsideration Stage” of the process after an initial denial.

That being said, the Federal or Postal employee must – and should – consider the Third Stage of the Federal Disability Retirement process, which involves an Administrative Judge before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.  That is when the legal standard of “Preponderance of the Evidence” will ultimately become relevant and operative, and where the evidence gathered and the amalgamation of arguments proffered becomes a basis for testing the validity of legal standards and the meaningful application of the law, evidence, and statutory interpretations.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement from Federal Employment: The Methodological Approach

Many call in a frenzy of confusion, admitting openly of being lost and not knowing where to begin.  That is always the starting point, as even Socrates conceded — of the hope of knowledge beginning upon a recognition of not knowing (though, if one looked carefully and scrutinized the face and eyes of the old sage, one probably gleaned a twinkle of sly naughtiness).

Philosophy began in ignorance, and from there, attempted to ascertain a methodology of approaching problems in a systematic way, in order to overcome the shortcomings of man’s frenetic inclinations.  Identifying and ascertaining a knowledge of a criteria, a system of approaching problems, and an applied methodology of solving, is the preferable way than that of plugging holes where leaks appear.

Thus, for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need 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, it is often necessary to formulate a sequential strategy at the outset, before embarking upon the dark abyss of preparing, formulating and filing for OPM Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Should certain information be gathered prior to completing the standard forms?  Yes.  What forms are “central” to a Federal Disability Retirement application?  Certainly, all of them, but if timeliness is an issue and the 1-year Statute of Limitations is suddenly upon the Federal or Postal employee attempting to file, then the SF 3107, Application for Immediate Retirement, including Schedules A, B & C, as well as SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, must all concurrently be prepared for immediate submission.

Identification of the essential as opposed to the bifurcated peripheral must be realized; compilation of the proper information, and the laws governing supplementing a Federal Disability Retirement application is essential for a successful outcome.

In the end, as it turns out, Socrates knew much more than he revealed; but the sly sage was wise enough not to engage in the solipsism of later years, like Descartes and the French Existentialists, and by recognizing that lack of knowledge and the admission of such vacuity is the first step towards wisdom, he was able to initiate the prefatory questions in the quest for knowledge in a world devoid of both.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: The Trinkets We Hold Dear

If value of item determines retention of possession, then few trinkets would survive the test of economic viability; but a quick perusal of one’s home will often discover large caches of sentimental liabilities strewn throughout.  What determines value, then?  Is it the monetization of an item?  Or perhaps the psychological attachment, combined with the economic forces in capitalism of supply and demand?

Real estate values soar and plummet daily, and when one considers the “high end” fluctuations where market reductions may comprise differences in the millions, one wonders about “true value” and “false valuations” of goods and services whether small or large.  If you go through your house and begin to account for the trinkets we have amassed, is it because of the monetary value attached that we continue to retain it, or the memories and golden threads of psychological ties which bind?  Is it not often the same with other issues in one’s life — of even friendships, pets and jobs?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to prevent one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, the question one needs to ask at the outset is:  Why are we holding onto this trinket for dear life?  Is it really worth it?  At what cost?  What are the ties that bind?

Filing for OPM Disability Retirement is always a traumatic event; for, it is a dramatic change, often within a context of caustic and hostile circumstances.  But to remain is rarely an option; to walk away with nothing is not a wise one; so, one is often left with the best alternative possible:  to 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.

And like the trinket which holds one bound to memories of yore unblemished in their reflective delights of past warmth, they remain so, like the pitter-patter of a soft summer day’s cloudburst, stopping only to reveal the misty haze of a childhood dream.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Masking Imperfections

Have you ever noticed how British actors don’t have the same perfectly white teeth as their American counterparts?  Or, for that matter, any non-American, foreign television personality; unless, of course, they have lived here for a few years, in which case they have already undergone the cosmetic transformation of dental voila.  Beware of that which one preaches for others; for, someday, it may come back to embrace the hypocrisy of one’s being.  Yet, when something becomes the normative standard for everyone, then boredom and monotony of purpose begins to set in.

Thus do we require perfection of those television personalities which appear on various channels, and models and movie stars and even fill-ins and “extras”; and soon it appears as if everyone is born with a perfect set of teeth.  With perfection comes intransigence; and soon thereafter, intolerance for any miscreant of societal norms.  For all the talk about inclusion and acceptance, the one conflagration of discrimination always involves the ethereal universe of being “different” from others.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to perform the essential elements of one’s positional duties at the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, the fear of failing the standards of perfection predicated upon a public perception of tolerant intolerance, pervades us all.

Let me elaborate for a moment:  We require perfection of personalities which we never meet but view daily; such a requirement ultimately reverberates throughout society and the psyche of a country; we carry forth that aura of requisite perfection, and begin to believe in the very lies of our own making.  That is the subtle insidiousness of imposed standards which we never asked for, rarely noticed and fleetingly thought about.  So the question becomes, Why do we then take such efforts to mask our imperfections?

Medical conditions are a fact of life.  Being included in the greater realm of “beautiful people” is that harkening back to those pre-teen years of wanting to be part of the clique that was cool.  When hostility and exclusion at the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service becomes unbearable, it becomes the exacerbating trigger of greater pain and anguish resulting through the medical condition one already suffers from.

It is time, then, 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.  Time for a change; time to unmask the masking of perfection; and time to move on beyond the cliquish immaturity of normative standards and relegate them to the vestiges of quiet failings.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire