Early Retirement for Disabled Federal Workers: Interests

There is self-interest; then, the interest of the third party; or perhaps on behalf of the interests of you, the second person.  Whatever the interests involved, for some odd reason, it is the “self-interested party” that raises an ire of suspicion, a pause devolving with a wrinkled eyebrow, a frown or a furtive look of concern.

Thus, of the old adage that a person who represents his or her own interests may be deemed a fool —but not because of any fervency of advocacy, or even a question of competence, necessarily; rather, it is because of the loss of objectivity that is perpetrated by failing to be able to step back and review one’s circumstances with disinterested dispassion.

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 basic elements of one’s Federal job, the concern about whose interests are being looked after, and whether or not what you are doing is in the “best interests” of the client involved — you — should always be one of concern.

You may well be the best person who looks after your own interests — for, surely the one who has the most to gain or lose is the one who will look after those interests.  However, the reason why representing one’s self in a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is often an unwise move, is because the loss of objectivity cannot always be overcome by the medical evidence presented to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

It may well be appropriate to write an impassioned letter in declaring one’s love for someone; or even a heartfelt declaration using many adjectives and adverbs in conveying condolences or an apology; but when one is beset with a medical condition and is trying simultaneously to manage one’s medical conditions while describing it for purposes of trying to obtain OPM Disability Retirement benefits — it may be too difficult to unravel the double helix of self-interested entanglement in order to attain a needed level of objectivity in the matter.

That is why interests self-directed, especially when pursuing a Federal Disability Retirement annuity, would best be left in the capable hands of an attorney who specializes in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer Representation for OPM Disability Claims: Hypotheticals

Why do lawyers, above most other professions, utilize the tool of hypotheticals?  What is their evidentiary value, and in what way does it help to advance the cause of one’s case?

Say, for instance, you need an architect or an engineer (yes, yes, the humor here is that in speaking about hypotheticals, we are preparing to present one), would you be at all impressed if, after describing with precision the type of product you desire to have built, or in requesting a blueprint of a model house you are interested in, the architect or the engineer presents you with a hypothetical?

What, first of all, is a ‘hypothetical’?  It is, first and foremost, a proposition of non-existence, but with components of reality that may or may not have occurred or existed except in partial or disparate forms, delineated in an attempt to make or prove a point.  It is the tool of the attorney, just as the pencil and the blueprint are the resources of the architect, and the mathematical calculations the reliance of the engineer.  Often, it is used by means of analogical content to prove a point and to enhance the evidence gathered.

Take, for example, the lawyer who defended a bank robber.  He meets his client for the first time, and the criminal defense lawyer puts up a hand in order to stop his client from speaking, and says the following: “Now, take the following hypothetical, Mr. Dillinger: A man walks into a bank and hands a note to the teller that says, ‘Give me everything in your drawers.’  Now, that man was subsequently arrested.  No cash was ever exchanged; no weapon was ever found.  The question, then, is: What was meant by the words?  Only you know.  If, by way of a hypothetical, the man meant to obtain the contents of the teller’s drawer, it might mean 10 years in prison.  If, on the other hand, the note meant to be a lewd proposal about the teller’s anatomy beneath her undergarments, it would likely be a misdemeanor offense.  Now, Mr. Dillinger, which is it?”

Now, aside from some who would view such a presentation as somewhat unethical for “suggesting”, on the part of the lawyer, which intended “meaning” the defendant possessed at the time the note was passed, such a hypothetical is intended to denote the importance of hypotheticals within the purview of “the law”.  Hypotheticals allow for individuals to see the differences in paradigms or examples; it allows for options by way of analogy.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition where 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, hypotheticals have quite likely become like unicorns and gnomes: no longer a figment of one’s imagination, but a reality that must be faced within a surreal universe of a Federal Agency or the Postal Service that fails to possess the humanity necessary in dealing with a person with failing health.

Words of platitudes are often spoken; and, perhaps, here and there, you come across someone at your agency that actually cares.  But for the most part, such “caring” amounts to no more of a reality than mere hypotheticals; and when that realization comes about that the clash between hypotheticals and reality must be confronted, it is time to get down to the “nuts and bolts” and prepare, formulate and file a Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

And, as an aside, you may be asking, What was Mr. Dillinger’s response to the lawyer’s hypothetical? He punched the lawyer in the mouth, stood up and said, “Jeez, I ain’t no pervert!  Of course I wanted the money!”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Fodder for our own folly

We often collect that which we know we need not; and of fodder for other’s play, who but the foolish gather the refuse of one’s own folly?  Why does youth engage in a greater percentage of folly, and why do old men insist upon driving uncomfortable cars which make them look foolish once they park and struggle to get out from a position of near-supine discomfort so debilitating that you can almost see the decrepit arches of an arthritic back?  Foolishness, of course, is not the reserve of the young only, as middle-aged men with youthful grins and old men with conniving friends whose sole purpose in remaining a soul-mate is contingent upon peeking at the bank account of retirees, reveal and manifest daily.

In the end, the test that has always worked for this writer, is twofold:  First, that sincerity is never defined by more words piled upon a previous set of words, but action which follows to concretize the empty promises of uttered speech; and Second, that everyone in the world can do whatever he or she wants, so long as you are willing the pay the price.  Thus, as to the latter, it is all well and good to say you want to do this or that, but the problem occurs when consequences unfold, and you expect others to pay the fine, complete the obligation, satisfy the debt or expend efforts to extricate from the difficulties created.

For children, there is always an excuse:  Parental obligation and the minor’s claim of not having the maturity to “know better”, compels a feeling of empathy, a reminiscence of remorse, and a hint of guilt for not having spent that extra hour coaching youth baseball or embracing that “quality time” which forever harmed that fragile psyche of that young underling who – by all other measures of objectivity – is described as merely a “brat”.  Of the former, one must simply admit that the American folklore of a fool being born every minute – or was it every second? – is reinforced by our own inability to consecrate the condoning cadence of our corrugated cacophonies of constancy; sorry, but once alliteration becomes engaged, it is like putting a finger on the trigger of an automatic weapon and losing control.

More to the point:  Most arguments are non-substantive.  By that is meant the following:  there is rarely a “real” issue of disagreement, but rather, a mere necessity to renegotiate the words used in order to fit into a puzzle where two or more people interact.  That being the case, most issues that arise, are resolved with more words imparted, which is simply a further negotiation of words upon words in a language game of meaning, reinterpretation and declaration of purpose.

But as being foolish has a price to pay (refer to the Second Rule stated herein), so the need to follow up with a concrete action, instead of more words (i.e., the First Rule stated above) is necessitated when real issues that have an impact and consequence effect upon lives of others.  Most problems in life are self-creations; those who have a greater ability to justify by blaming others, simply get away with it without blemish or repercussions.

For Federal and Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from continuing on in the career of his or her choice, the exception to the above applies:  Medical conditions are never the fault of one’s own, and so Rule One and Rule Two should never be considered.  It is, instead, Rule Three (heretofore unstated) which should rule:  Prepare the most effective Federal Disability Retirement application you can, and file it as soon as practicable, as the wait before the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is long and arduous, but always keep in mind the fodder for our own folly applies to everyone individually, including those within a massive bureaucracy as that of OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer: Unrehearsed Spontaneity

In the absence of a coherent plan, one is left with the ad hoc approach of a sometimes delicious unfolding of unrehearsed spontaneity.  Dinner conversations; an unplanned visit; a sudden windfall; an inheritance from a long-lost relative; these are all desirable circumstances to suddenly befall; but most things in life require some extent of planning, and to expect positive results in the same manner as a string of lucky draws, is to ask for failure in the face of unrealistic anticipatory happenstance.

Medical conditions fall into the category of unexpected events; how one responds to it, what steps are taken, and where one goes from the discovery of the information — these are determinable follow-ups.  We often confuse and bundle together causation with effects.

Hume’s bifurcation via use of billiard balls as an example, illustrates the point of recognizing the importance of identifying that “necessary connection” which is lacking when discussing the universe of inception and result.  Some things happen without rational basis or knowable justification; but where we have the capacity to engage an active hand in a matter, the consequences we perceive from our affirmative participation can be defined and comprehensive.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who find that a medical condition has impacted his or her ability and capacity to continue in the Federal or Postal job, it is important to recognize that unrehearsed spontaneity is fine for a time, but not for planning the course of one’s future.

Preparing, formulating and 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, requires the cogent and deliberative gathering of relevant medical documentation; the capacity to compile the compendium of proof in order to qualify; and the application of legal argumentation in combining medical information with legal significance, in order to persuasively submit an effective Federal Disability Retirement packet.

Approvals are not won by mere happenstance; luck in a Federal Disability Retirement application is not based upon a lottery ticket purchased, forgotten, and suddenly viewed for statistical improbabilities; rather, it is a focused approach upon a bureaucratic process where the coalescence of facts, law, and preponderance of the evidence are compiled with a deliberative approach.

Leave the delicious moment of unrehearsed spontaneity to a dance under a sudden cloudburst; to prepare an OPM Disability Retirement application of efficacy and success, a wider approach of planning is necessary.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire