FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: The Fish Story

Over the years, Uncle Ben’s famous catch of the marlin in a skiff off the coast of Maine became suspiciously similar to Hemingway’s famous novel, The Old Man and the Sea.

There were some details which remained somewhat believable — like, the fact that he actually caught something.  But of others, the exaggerated embellishments — of some “unknown sea monster, likely a Great White Shark or a Killer Whale” which gobbled up most of the catch by the time he arrived on shore, the skiff barely seaworthy by that time; of how the townspeople had to “fight off” the sea monster and hit it with various implements; and of the photograph taken — but somehow lost — of the skeletal remains of the large fish caught and lost.

Alcohol on nights gathered seemed to exponentially embellish the story of Uncle Ben and the Sea, when as twilight tended to quiet the lips of nodding heads, it would begin with, “Did I ever tell you about the Big One that almost got away?”  Everyone, of course, had heard the story 10x over and more, but it was more told by tradition than a query for interest or information.

It was like the Hasidic challenge as told by Chaim Potok in The Chosen — where a new and inaccurate twist would be inserted in the narrative, and someone would say, “But Uncle Ben, you never told us about that, before!”  There would be a pause, and everyone would laugh uproariously, knowing that the Fish Story had added to it anther saga that was to ever develop as the years ensued.

That was, in the end, the beauty of The Fish Story — for, the house of words was built upon a memory, with no evidence needed to back it up.  In most other aspects of life, however, that is not the case.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under the FERS retirement system, facts and evidence matter.  The preparation of an effective application for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, cannot be like the Fish Story — even if it is well-told like Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea.  Instead, it must be meticulously prepared and detail-oriented.

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider whether or not you want to rely upon an experienced Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer, or on Uncle Ben’s rendition of The Fish Story.

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.

 

FERS Disability Retirement: The Importance of Sequence

When and how do we learn that sequence is important?  Step B must follow A, and C comes after B, etc.  What happens if you perform B after C, and C before A?  It all depends, doesn’t it?

If random performance of a task has no impact upon the ultimate outcome, then such arbitrariness of selecting any given point in a sequence of events or assigned tasks is acceptable and workable.  It is when sequence matters — of the necessity of performing a specific task within a sequence of tasks — that one must first recognize why there is an underlying importance and significance in the final submission or conclusion of a project, task, etc.

For Federal and Postal employees who are contemplating formulating and submitting a Federal Disability Retirement application, sequence is important.  How one formulates the case — the legal arguments to be submitted, the medical documentation to be gathered, reviewed and coordinated; the Applicant’s Statement of Disability — of the “when” — are all important in formulating an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Consult with an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and recognize, understand and implement the importance of sequence in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: The Percentage Game

We all play it; whether in calculating the chances of success (most of us are not knowledgeable enough to be statisticians, not having paid close enough attention in high school or college to that mathematics course regarding the numerical analysis of a numbers-based algorithm), or in merely keeping an eye on interest rates in the housing market, or perhaps taking note of how likely it is to be attacked by a shark before we step into the polluted waters of the Atlantic.

OPM certainly plays the game — one needs only to look at a Denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to realize that, the manner in which the Denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application is written, there will be a certain percentage of people who will read it and say, “Gee, I never stood a chance.  I might as well not even go any further.”

The Denials are often written in unequivocal terms, stating with a tone of certainty that there was never any basis for filing, and that any further efforts would be fruitless and futile.  And from that language of certainty, a certain percentage of Federal Disability Retirement applicants will simply give up and walk away.  That is what the percentage game is based upon.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have received a Denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is wise to consult with an experienced attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to perform an objective-based evaluation of a Federal Disability Retirement claim.  Better, yet, consult with such an attorney even before you begin the process, to ensure the best chances in this “percentage game” which OPM plays.

Sincerely,

Robert R.McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Sufficiency Test

“Sufficiency” is a funny word; like other subjective experiences, one often doesn’t know when it has been satisfied, but one nevertheless knows when it has not.  Like spectrums which reveal a range, sufficiency is a point of satisfaction which is recognized to have been met only after the point of sufficiency has been passed.

What constitutes “passing” the sufficiency test?  If someone has been kidnapped and a ransom note has been received, demanding payment for the safe return of the individual, is there an amount less than the demanded amount which would be “sufficient” to satisfy the kidnapper’s demands?  Can a platoon be “sufficiently” prepared for a combat mission, although not completely combat-ready?  Can percentages be applied which establishes meeting the criteria for sufficiency, at all times and in all instances, which can be applied as having met the sufficiency test?

Say a person says, “It is 80% done — sufficient for the purposes?”  Would this apply in painting a room, building a house or constructing a bridge?  Say that a bridge has been built 80%, and the last 20% is the part of the end where there remains a gap where suddenly the bridge ends with a missing piece where the gap exists such that a vehicle traveling would crash down a 100-foot drop to a tragic end — do we still say that the bridge was sufficiently built?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Workers who are intending on filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, the issue of sufficiency takes on an important role: What constitutes sufficient medical evidence and how is the unspoken sufficiency test met?

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to make sure that the Sufficiency Test will be met. In doing so, you may prevent a leisurely drive over a bridge only 80% finished, and be provided an alternative route in order to help you arrive at your destination in a sufficiently safe and efficient manner.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS Disability Retirement for Federal & Postal Employees: Seeking

Isn’t that the condition for life?  That we continually engage in the very human act of seeking, whether for personal growth or professional aptitude; but it is always that constant need to know, to expand, to cross borders and extend beyond the invisible ceiling or barrier that is placed from our birthright to explore and to seek.

Seeking is a hallmark of human behavior; it is the constant seeking that keeps us reinvigorated, alive, instilled with hope and painted with the colors of future dreams. Without seeking, we become staid, unadventurous, static and timid; the world becomes threatening because we have stopped and stunted our own growth potential.  Seeking is always coupled with hope; hope, often seen with future aspirations; and when the seeking stops, it is normally a symptom of a disease which destroys hopes and aspirations.

Medical conditions often undermine the human desire to seek; for, the disease that destroys and disrupts is the same which diminishes one’s hopes and aspirations.

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, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits becomes an important next step in order to regain that human desire for seeking — for one’s future and one’s hopes and aspirations.

Contact an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law in order to move beyond the morass of struggling daily to maintain a Federal position when it has become clear that one’s future is no longer compatible with the Federal or Postal job one holds.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for FERS Employees: Incompatibility

The proof that must be shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, is that the Federal or Postal worker has a deficiency with respect to performance, conduct or attendance, or in the absence of any actual service deficiency, a showing that the medical condition is incompatible with either useful service or retention in the position held.

In recent months, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management has been ignoring the part about the “incompatibility” provision, and instead has been unfairly focusing upon whether or not a supervisor has deemed an individual’s past performance as having shown any deficiencies in performance, attendance or conduct.

The system of “performance reviews” favors passing most employees through without any deficiencies, and the reason for this is that it is often too much of a headache to give an employee a “less than fully successful” rating, lest there be grievances filed and appeals noted, creating a greater workload for the supervising authorities.

But even when there are noted and substantiated deficiencies in one’s performance, conduct or attendance, OPM will often dismiss such deficiencies as not being supported by the medical documentation, anyway, and so the basis for a denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application is often a compendium of circular arguments posited by OPM without any adherence to the law or acknowledgment of the facts.

More cases appear to be denied by OPM in recent months; ignoring the law and asserting unfounded reasons for such denials, and so it is important to fight against the trend that seems to be asserted by OPM: Ignoring well-established precedents in law and ignoring the facts by selectively extrapolating what OPM wants to focus upon.

If you have been denied, or want to put forth the best First-Stage OPM Disability Retirement application possible, contact an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire