FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Belonging

Do any of us, anymore?  When a question is posed, the fact that the posing of the question even occurs, presents an underlying and exposed problem: For, what historical background occurred which prompted the question to be posed in the first place?  When first the credibility of the priest was questioned, was there not a deeper problem which needed to be addressed, to begin with?

There was a time, now forgotten, now repressed in the ages long passed, when the question of belonging never appeared.  One was born in the village of ancestors; the future was encapsulated within the community one grew up in; one’s identity was a part of the greater character of the community; the future was always ensconced within the family, the neighborhood, the town, etc.

There was never a question of belonging; for, to not belong was relegated to those outsiders from elsewhere.  Belonging was a given.  The silence before the question was the norm which everyone understood; and understanding was always passive, without the active question which shakes the foundation of belonging itself.

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, the question of “belonging” is a fearful one.  For, the superficiality of the concept with the Federal Agency is well-known: You “belong” only so long as you can contribute a measure of efficient service.

This notion of being a “valuable” employee is based only upon what you did today, and runs no deeper than yesterday’s performance ratings.  Why else would you try and hide your medical condition?

Contact a disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider that the depth of belonging with a Federal Agency or the Postal Service is only as deep as what you did yesterday for them, and once they find out that you will no longer be a member of “the team”, chances are, your “belonging” will be a mere vestige of longing long passed.

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.

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Having something to say

There are people who speak volumes in voluminous volubility, but of thinness of content and lacking of much substance.  Then, there is that quiet person in the corner, perhaps distracted by someone’s glancing comment or lost in his own thoughts who, when asked about a topic of general interest to all in a group, articulates in a single sentence what others have attempted to encapsulate in a paragraph, a page, or perhaps a Dickensian novel.

Having something to say is the linguistic equivalent of wanting to be noticed, needing to be relevant and asking to be loved.  The capitalistic rule of supply-and-demand works within other and foreign contexts, as well — that when the supply of articulation exceeds the demand sought, the diminishment of value in words is proportional to the content of relevance.

Of course, the general truism which becomes reduced to an inane thought is that we “all have something to say” — that is to say, each one of us can make a contribution to the general pool of solutions, ideas, thoughts, etc.  But if everyone can be everything to everybody, then nothing comes from nothing where something is devalued because everything is nothing — in other words, the diminishment of value because supply exceeds so much of a lesser demand.

There are times, of course, when — whether we have something to say or not — it becomes necessary to express something; to express it well; and to express it with clarity and conciseness of thought.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have come to a point where filing for Federal Disability Retirement has become a necessity, “Having something to say” becomes important because of the requirement of filing SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability as part of the FERS Disability Retirement packet.  The questions posed on SF 3112A appear simple; but do not mistake “simple” for “simplicity” — for, within the content of the simple are a jumble of complexities that are interconnected with legal precedents and court rulings.

Language is a funny animal; it requires thought beyond the pool of language one is familiar with, and it is the unfamiliar which can become the cliff over which one can fall, and to prevent the calamities which one may not be aware of, it is best to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to make sure that when you have something to say, it is posited with knowledge and legal counsel.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Figuring it all out

We all try and do it.  Somehow, pride’s fall and the fool’s failure arrives by way of the solitary figure trying to go it alone.  Friendship never had a chance, and the neighbor’s mended fences never allowed for any conversation of depth beyond the wave of the hand or the occasional “hello, how are you” — punctuated by a quick about-face and racing with terror into the sanctuary of one’s home.

Figuring it all out on our own; walking about mulling over, obsessing into and turning it over and over, again and again; whatever the “it” is, that is where the focus of our attentions gain the greater amount of time and wasted efforts.

What is the “process” of “figuring it all out”?  Do we ask others — experts, perhaps, in respective fields where a lifetime of devotion to details has been contributed to and energy expended for — or do we just begin trolling the Internet and various websites, hoping that unsourced and unreferenced information “out there” will provide answers to questions of which we know not what to ask?

In modernity, where “facts” have now been conflated with unverified opinions, and where truth and falsity are all relative and justified as on an equivalency of values, it has become dangerous to “figure it all out” without some rational basis, some inception-point of a reference where even a remote semblance of simplified questions-and-answers can be gotten.

Life is complex as it is; trying to figure it all out can make the complex into a conundrum; and further, we must always come back to the age-old question:  It all depends upon what the “it” is (as opposed to what the meaning of “is” is), doesn’t it?

Fortunately, for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the medical condition is beginning to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job — figuring it all out can, and should, begin with previewing and perusing “The Law” governing Federal Disability Retirement.

However, as there is much information — and misinformation — “out there”, be careful in believing what sources to rely upon, as there are many bumps and pitfalls in Federal Disability Retirement Law.  Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law; don’t try and “figure it all out” on your own, as it is an unnecessary and misdirected misadventure.

Only in the movies is it acceptable to “go rogue”; in real life, consulting with an expert is the best way to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, whether you are under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The language divide

Why is it that language is often so far removed from the living of life?  Was Wittgenstein correct – that it is a distinct world, separate and apart, that really has nothing to do with the “reality” of an “objective” universe?  Was Russell’s cutting quips about the bald King of France a way to point out that the primitive outlook of the traditional correspondence theory of language – that words, concepts, etc. are meant to parallel the objective world “out there” – doesn’t quite fit the proverbial bill, and that we are left with a linguistic universe insularly created and forever divided from the noumenal world that Kant had identified?

Take the following short puzzle that was recently heard: “There are eleven birds sitting on the telephone wire.  A young boy takes a gun and shoots one, and kills it. How many are left on the telephone wire?” Now, the answer to that minor conundrum should be quite elementary, but depends upon how we approach it.

From a mathematical viewpoint, one simply takes the numbers – a purely “theoretical” approach, divorced from the reality of the objective world in which we live, and subtract the 1 dead bird shot by the young lad, from the original number of birds identified on the telephone wire, and come up with the correct answer: 10 are left, because 1 was shot and killed, and therefore the mathematical equation: 11 – 1 = 10.  But it turns out that the correct answer is: “None”.  Why?  Because once the boy fired the gun and killed the 1, all of the others flew away.  Now, one can scratch one’s head and say with self-effacement, “Of course!  That only makes sense!”  Or, one can pause and say, “Now, why wasn’t that as obvious as the answer now seems, after it is pointed out to me?”

Now, contrast that with “real life”:  A hunter goes with his loyal dog and flushes out 3 pheasants from the forest; he takes aim and kills 2; 1 gets away.  He is later asked, “How many did you get?”  He answers, “Two.”  He is asked:  “Any left behind?”  The hunter looks at the questioner quizzically, with some puzzlement.  Why?  Because the question doesn’t quite make any sense – why would you ask such a question?

The fact is that there is a language divide – in real life, asking “how many are left” is not a relevant question, because the reality of living one’s life has already revealed the reality of the living.  It is only when we turn reality into an insularity ensconced within a theoretical construct does it become a thinking universe divorced from the objective world around us.

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, the issue of the language divide is a reality that the Federal or Postal worker must live with each and every day of your life.  That is because you live with a medical condition – the deteriorating effects, the daily symptoms, the chronic pain, numbness, gait imbalance, dizziness, vertigo, cognitive dysfunctions, etc.  The “world of language” doesn’t quite “understand” the reality of the medical condition, and is often inadequate to describe or decipher the sensations experienced.

That being said, in order to formulate an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, the language divide must nevertheless be bridged; for, an effective Federal Disability Retirement application must by necessity enter the world of language – of the Applicant’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A), the medical reports, and legal argumentation with persuasive force; and it is the language divide itself which must become the vehicle for an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, so that when the single bird is shot, there aren’t any left to speak about on the telephone wire that connects language to the reality of one’s life.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement under: Duplicative Duplicity

We can lie to others; others can deceive us; one can persuade oneself of a falsehood in order to live a deception; and we may even be able to persuade others, despite knowing the truth, to tell a lie and come to believe it in order to create an atmosphere of believability for third parties to concede.  The capacity for human nature to construct walls of deception, and double-walls of duplicity, is fathomless and without competition.

Everywhere else in the animal kingdom, the stark reality of the innate essence for survival prompts and compels in order to meet the day’s needs and arrive at the horizon’s end so as to lay one’s head upon a pillow of restive sleep; but not for man.  It is not just that we can ignore and set aside; we can repress and play-act, and convince others of the finery of the emperor’s clothes.

We can engage in sympathetic acts of criminal endeavors, join the Symbionese Liberation Army and claim the Stockholm Syndrome as a defense against our prosecutors, and live life within the parameters of the lie told and the deception accepted.  But then, one day, an obstacle is encountered.  Reality tends to slap one in the face, flush where the pain will not go away.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition necessitates contemplating filing 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, the revelation of duplicative duplicity normally arrives when the pain and purview of one’s medical condition exponentially exceeds the spectrum of tolerance for continuation beyond overwhelming turmoil.

When life becomes unbearable, we tend to act.

Only in the antiseptic universe outside of the general laws of Darwinian behavior can we survive beyond our own making of deceptive parallel universes.  But our bodies tell of truths; our instinct, the need to act; and despite expanding our natural arc of flight by duplicative duplicities, the flickering depths of our animal essence can never truly be extinguished.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The Adaptable Criterion

If a criterion is advanced at the outset, one expects that the details of its applicability will result in a fair outcome so long as the requisite subsets are adhered to.  The problem is one of generalizations, however, and the linguistic malleability of hermeneutic interpretation, and in the end, the honesty of the individual.

There may have been a time when the sin nature of man was contained, and Pandora’s box was sealed, or at least somewhat secured; but once relativism creeped into the general populace, the game of restraint was lost forever.  Once, when man was left to individualistic devices, and information concerning the world was considered esoteric and reserved for the ivory towers of science and theological hoods of mystery shorn by Jesuit Orders of secrecy and cavernous enclaves of furtive whispers echoing down dark chambers in secluded corners, the application and usage of criteria demanded knowledge beyond the commonplace. Now, with Google and other search engines, everyone knows everything, or nothing at all.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing 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, the “trick” is to review the legal criteria, amass the information in a manner which fits the applicability for eligibility, then to “make the case” for an approval.

Is it a science?  Or, more precisely, are the regulatory subsets “open to interpretation”?  And more to the point:  Do the Administrative Specialists at OPM adhere to the “letter of the law”, or is hermeneutics less than an honest methodology these days?  Where human nature is concerned, one need not stray too far from the general knowledge of the masses.

If one has lived long enough, you know that you should always walk through the busy streets of a city with one hand on your back pocket, protecting your wallet.  Pickpockets are everywhere, and in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, the Federal and Postal worker should always be cognizant of the fact that the adaptable criterion is not the fault of the agency or the promulgators of legal standards, but merely reflects the fact that Pandora’s box was left open long ago, and the serpents of horror and dishonesty were left to roam the earth like never before.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer: Preemptive Actions

Knowledge can be a dangerous commodity; partial, or little knowledge, can be all the more damaging, precisely because actions can result based upon incomplete information and slices of factually curtailed composites.

The Court of the Appeals for the Federal Circuit has previously pointed out one of the methodological deficiencies engaged in by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in its review and determination of Federal Disability Retirement cases:  of focusing upon that which is not included in a Federal Disability Retirement application, as opposed to reviewing the information of what has been received.

Such a distinction may be a subtle one, and a difference which can be easily overlooked, but it reveals much more than mere word-play.  For, what it manifests is an application of a criteria based upon an erroneous assumption, and one which continues to be applied to this day, despite case-law which admonishes OPM to the contrary.

Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, a 2007 Federal Court of Appeals case, points out the error of OPM’s ways in Federal Disability Retirement cases, where insistence upon “objective” medical evidence continues to dominate, despite the lack of such requirement to the contrary.  Such an issue is especially relevant, of course, in cases where psychiatric medical conditions prevail, and when OPM insists upon the lack of such “objective” medical evidence where none can be obtained, it leads to Federal and Postal employees to react desperately in a preemptively unreasonable frenzy of actions.

Not knowing the law is one thing; knowing, but deliberately ignoring it, is quite another.  But the price Federal and Postal employees pay for when a bureaucracy engages in practices which clearly defy the clear mandate of legal requirement, results in preemptive actions which ultimately lead to another day in Court, to argue that which one thought was previously already established.

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