Federal Disability Retirement: Annoyance or Irritant

They are both nouns, but the difference is one of perspective — of the view or angle from which it is felt, experienced, encountered or received.

To that end, it encapsulates the dichotomy between subjective and objective; for, the former normally refers to one’s subjective experience, the state of being or the sensation the “subject” experiences; while the latter refers to a substance — an “object” out there in the world outside of our internal, subjective sensations — which causes discomfort or a phenomena of displeasure.

An irritant may cause an annoyance, and an annoyance can be an irritant, and it is the classic distinction between the “inside” as opposed to the “outside” experience.  We can refer to certain chemicals, cleaning fluids and the like as irritants, but we normally do not declare that they constitute an annoyance; although, the linguistic lines are not so strict as to prevent a person from saying, for example, “That woman’s perfume is somewhat of an annoyance”.

On the other hand, one might refer to someone’s constant manner of clearing his or her throat in mid-sentence as an “annoyance”, but because it does not directly impact one’s own physical well-being, such a quirk is likely not referred to as an “irritant”, although one may use the adjective form of the word and confide that the person’s manner is “irritating”.

In the end, the two words are somewhat similar in meaning but reveal their differences from the aspect of perspective — of whom, or from where.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition where the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the basic elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it is important to understand and appreciate the distinction which the U.S. Office of Personnel Management often makes between “objective” evidence and “subjective” evidence.

OPM will often twist and misapply the law, and make you think that certain medical evidence deemed “subjective” are like second-class citizens and less than credible, and will insist that only “objective” evidence is acceptable.  Don’t let OPM fool you.

Contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and let not the ignorance of the law defeat your quest to obtain an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and don’t let the word-games irritate or annoy 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.

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: The Bellwether

It is the leading sheep of the flock, graced with a bell on its neck in order to establish its role for the others; or, in more colloquial parlance, the predictor or indicator of something.

Thus, a red sky may be the bellwether of a coming storm (not being a seaman, one forgets whether it is the night or morning sky which is the predictor).  If one is superstitious, a cracked mirror or the unexpected crossing of a black cat is likely a bellwether of something — although, in modernity, perhaps the anachronisms no longer apply.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows the Federal or Postal employee to continue in his or her Federal or Postal job, the question of a bellwether is appropriate.

Under FERS Disability Retirement laws, one must be able to show that a medical condition will last a minimum of 12 months.  One does NOT have to wait the 12 months in order file; merely, that a doctor can, within reasonable medical probability, “predict” or provide a prognosis that a medical condition will last for at least that long.

Most Federal and Postal workers “know” from the start whether or not a medical condition will last a minimum of 12 months; such a bellwether is not rocket science, but more of an intuition established by one’s sense of one’s own health.

Contact a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and see whether the bellwether rings for the pathway towards an early medical retirement 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.

 

OPM Medical Retirement under FERS: Primary Questions

You can easily get entrenched within a morass of details.  Primary questions — those issues which, when addressed and answered, essentially take care of sub-questions and lesser categories of details — need to be identified and prioritized.

Many people are unable to recognize, identify and extract the primary questions.  Why? Because, if you are unfamiliar with the paradigmatic, upper echelons of the legal criteria being applied (for instance, in a legal matter), then how are you going to be able to “separate out” the proverbial grain from the chaff?

At all 3 of the main stages of a Federal Disability Retirement case — at the Initial Stage; if denied, at the Reconsideration Stage; if denied a second time, before an Administrative Judge at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board — it is important to either preemptively or actively discern and discard the unimportant side-issues, and to focus upon the primary questions in a Federal Disability Retirement case.

The rule of life always applies: Prioritize; identify the primary questions and issues; take care of what is relevant; then, the rest of the “minor details” will often naturally fall to the wayside.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: A Reason for Everything

Why must we attach one to each event, every occurrence, all episodes?  Is there one for everything?  Must there be a “reason” for every event in life?

We require explanations — whether of a transcendent nature, a motive or a foundation explaining a causal connection; but is the necessity inherent in the event, or does it reveal more about ourselves as a species which demands a rational explanation?  Does it matter, ultimately, whether the rising of the sun is explained by referring to the awakening of the gods or that the revolution of the earth rotating around the sun explains the phenomena, and that the sun doesn’t actually rise, but because of the spinning cycle of the earth, dawn comes upon us?

Of course, in daily living, whichever explanation we accept — whether of the gods yawning and awakening or the more “scientific” explanation about planets and their rotational movements — matters not except perhaps to raise eyebrows during the course of a conversation with your boss, but it does, of course, make a tremendous difference if you work at NASA and are planning the next space mission.

We seek a reason for everything; that is the nature of human beings, and for Federal employees and 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 reason given to the question, “Why me?” may not be a simple one.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS may not answer the age-old questions concerning causality, but it will at least allow you to focus upon your health and the priorities in life.  Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement; at the very least, some of the questions and reasons concerning the complex conundrum concerning disability retirement may be answered.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
FERS Disability Attorney

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The infinite we seek

What is it about the things which defy limit; endless and vast beyond our capacity to comprehend, and yet we cling to concepts that cannot possibly be embraced precisely because the finite cannot delimit the infinite; for, to do so is a contradiction in terms?  Does language capture the infinite?  By knowing its definition, is there anything beyond being able to cite the description of the concept?  Why is it that some concepts are denied comprehension even though we can, by rote memory or simply by looking it up on our Smartphone and regurgitating that which someone else has written, describe and delineate?

Say, for instance, a lay person asks a Cardiac Specialist what is involved in a heart transplant, and Doctor X explains to Information-Seeker-Y the process of how the body is opened up, the various veins, ventricles, etc., snipped here and severed there, and what the dangers are, the risks posed, etc.  At the end of the explanation, we somehow feel satisfied that we have been informed of a procedure which we have never experienced, likely never witnessed and certainly will never undertake — yet, we believe we “understand’ the process.

Similarly, can a blind man who can explain the complete process involved in flying a plane say that he “understands” it fully?  And what is the fine print involved in “fully” as opposed to “partially”?  Yet, if we give the definition of “the infinite” as involving X, Y and Z, and “fully” delineate and explain the conceptual apparatus that makes up our understanding of it, nevertheless, in the end we are allowed to say, “But no one really understands what the infinite is, because we are finite beings.”

That is partially the brilliance of Anselm’s Ontological argument — of defining the infinite as “That than which nothing greater can be thought of” — a jumble of confusing words which seemingly bifurcates the finite from the infinite, but juxtaposes them in an aggregation which makes it seem like it makes sense.  In the end, it is best to know one’s own limitations and, by doing that, at least we can possess the knowledge that humility leads to greater wisdom through finite means of grasping the infinite.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who recognize the enormity of the process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is best to understand that the “infinite” — as defined as that which is limitless, endless and beyond measurability — can be applied to a bureaucratic process that involves multiple layers of incomprehensible complexities.

The infinite is a conundrum; the Federal process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is analogous to the infinite.  As such, it is wise to seek the counsel and advise of someone who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law — of a being who is that than which nothing legally can be thought of (i.e., an attorney who exclusively handles only Federal Disability Retirement cases).

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Representation: The habit that prevents

Kant was known to have followed a daily habitual routine that was marked with such precision that townspeople would set their watches and clocks by his various points of presence — i.e., if he was by the butcher’s shop, it was 3:15:17; if at the corner of Kroenigsburg Street, 3:16:09; and when he turned the corner of 7th and Main, it was 3:20:12.

One wonders if, had he paused at a random street corner to sneeze, would time have stopped, the universe become paralyzed, and the gods of the underworld been defeated in paroxysms of trembling fright?  Or, had he broken the daily routine of predictable sequences of the uninterrupted sojourn, marked by the two-steps-tap-tap with the cane of his choice, over and over again — step, step, tap, tap; step, step, tap, tap — would anyone have noticed?

Certainly, the townspeople would; and perhaps his rigid philosophical outlook, his moral foundation of principles that forever retained the universality of truth — maybe rigidity may have faltered and we would all be the poorer for it.

Could his mind have expanded into other arenas of philosophical discourse had he traveled beyond and broken the habit that prevents?  Does one’s actions of daily monotony determine the “type” of mind, thoughts, conscious processes, cognitive approaches, etc., such that there are habits that limit, prevent, pause or otherwise freeze?

Habit is a peculiar trait for human beings; it offers both solace and a sense of security in the very regularity of its path, somewhat like the repetition of a musical stanza that is both anticipated and relished despite its very predictability.  It becomes a harmful dependency, however, when the habit that prevents begins to forestall, stunt and actively become an obstacle that restrains necessary growth.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who suffers 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, it may well be that the habit that once allowed for success — of being punctual; of overextending one’s capacity in order to accomplish the impossible; of having such a dedication to “the mission” that one’s own health was always secondary — while honorable and laudatory while it lasted, may be the habit that now prevents.

Prevents what?  Of seeking greater health, of changing course in order to set a different goal; of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Sometimes, the habit that was once a positive trait becomes one that prevents, depending upon changing circumstances and altering contexts, and for the Federal or Postal employee needing to break the habit of always working for the “mission of the agency” or to complete all tasks for the Postal Service, preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with OPM, may be the best next habit that results in more than the monotony of a daily walk, but a step which breaks the routine of all prior steps in order to reach an important goal — one’s health.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Being too kind

Can we be so? Is there a tipping point on the pendulum of sugary personalities where the spectrum of color-coded warnings tell us to be wary, for danger lurking within a context where one becomes suspicious of a conversation turning to an overabundance of kindness? Is there such an event, a personality, a characteristic and a trait of opposition as “being too kind”? On a spectrum or scale of revealing who or what a person is – does kindness turn about into an antonym of sorts, and become naked meanness or obstructive disregard in malfeasance by neglectful ignorance?

Can parents be charged with negligence or criminal neglect because they are “too kind” to their children by allowing them to do as they please?

Can a sugary-sweet conversation engaged in with a superior turn out to be a deliberate intent to elicit responses where safeguards are lowered and one’s instinctive inner alarms of suspicion are temporarily abandoned? If a person is truly “too kind”, does being so become a detriment, or a badge of honor that allows for one to pass through life with ever a smile on one’s face? Or, behind closed doors, in the dead of night when the darkness shrouds the turmoil brewing in ones’ inner thoughts, at what price does being too kind extract, like that pound of flesh diminishing the weight of relevance for each of us in a world known to be mean and unkind?

We all accept predators and other animals of wolverine intent; and there are surely angels amongst the population who wander throughout in order to touch the hearts for the pleasure of gods in the underworld of eternity; but of those who by personality quirks or some missing link in the Darwinian universe of survival instincts, do the opposites of kindness equal the mathematical rule and create the sum of meanness, or its very opposite, of angelic qualities rarely encountered in this universe of cynicism?

Then, of course, there is the dismissive wave of the hand of which no one wants to fall within that category: “Oh, he’s a nice enough guy” – a declarative which, when properly interpreted, means: “Irrelevant; not worth spending more than a few seconds with”. For, being too kind has two faces to it: Whether of a perennially naïve character, such that the person with that eccentricity can be trampled upon and yet remain so; or, there is an underlying and often malicious intent beneath the veneer of such kindness.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, remember that there is always a history of repeated conduct by Federal Agencies and Postal Facilities, which should forewarn you about a person, an agency, a department of a facility, that suddenly is being too kind.

For, always remember the childhood fable about Grimm’s or Perrault’s eternal truth, as depicted by Little Red Riding Hood; and, depending upon the version written, you may not want to get into that bed with a grandmother who has a long and suspicious-looking nose, as well as other telling features that should ring the alarm.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Deferred hope unrealized

Hope is a necessary component to life.  When one is born, there are rarely instructional manuals which accompany the organic package of severed umbilical cord, amniotic fluid, blood and plasma formed by hydrostatic forces beyond ordinary knowledge or wisdom; the entity appears, and we are left to our own devices.  But “life” cannot exist in a vacuum, though we are forged by admonitions that the tough road ahead should be traveled with fortitude, “rugged individualism” (whatever that is), and independence tantamount to abandonment.

Somehow, to live separately, away from one’s family and unit of security, is the mark of “maturity” in the West, whereas the rest of the world recognizes that the essence and value of hope lay not in separation, but within the bosom of a caring community.  And so we defer the one component which becomes a necessary essence in order to strive onward:  hope.

Hope deferred means that there is a hope upon a hope; that, one day, in some faraway land in fairytales which garner and engender a twinkle of faith in a world without charity, love or the emotional health of civilizations now lost and torn apart, we may stumble upon that which we had to delay in order to maintain our sanity.

And so we engage in those distracting projects which Heidegger pointed out (yes, that very same philosopher who took up the cause of the Third Reich, whether because of fear or belief in a false mythology that promised nothing but black boots, destruction and toil by fear) those many years ago, where avoidance of the ultimate terminus of Being is why we descend into inane conversations of untimely concerns.

Which is also why the loss of innocence so early in life, where fairytales and mythologies once enjoyed have been replaced in modernity by stories barely masked as propaganda and indoctrination, is the pathway towards despair; no longer of glass slippers or castles in the sky, but of political correctness and belief in the system of ideologies; for, a society fragmented can only retain its semblance of sanity by keeping the masses in a dazed opioid of tethered slumber.

It is when the mature realization hits us that the deferred hope – which is a hope-upon-hope – will likely remain unrealized, thus undermining the prefatory hope and debasing the foundational hope, that angst, despair and despondency sets in.  Until that moment, we have that thin thread of faith in a fragile collection of psychic composite, barely held together by some miracle of superglue, yet enough to keep us motivated in a society filled with vacuity of hopelessness in a deep chasm of endless travesties.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal workers whose career is about to be cut short by a medical condition, such that the medical condition necessitates the preparation, formulation and filing of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the deferred hope of attaining a semblance of health and reversal of sleep deprivation may be gotten by the steps taken towards an OPM filing.

If there is yet a deferred hope unrealized, it may be time – whether the Postal or Federal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset – to actualize that potentiality left in a well of past procrastination, by preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, thus realizing that hope once deferred, and now within grasp and sight of embracing a promising future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Of that unanswerable question

Why?  Or, the one which all parents dread, Are we there, yet? (as asked not 2 minutes after the engine has been turned on in anticipation of a 10-hour trip).  There is, then, the question posed by Bertrand Russell, as to the meaning of language, its correspondence to the physical world around us, and whether a truth value can attach itself to statements which fail to reflect the reality surrounding: Is the present king of France bald? Or does he have a full head of hair? As the country is currently a republic, sans a recognized king, there can be no identifiable royal head, with or without a scalp’s landscape of cover crops.

Then, of course, there is the underlying motive hidden beneath or behind.  Is a rhetorical question a question at all?  For, if the proposed query is merely to emphasize a point, but never intended to elicit an answer, and yet asked in an accented manner and an enunciated tone such that there can be no doubt as to the grammatical form posited, is it the convention of usage which negates the form, or merely the self-evident proposition betrayed by the obviousness of the context asked?

And, what if the audience is predominantly of foreigners who speak the language with minimal proficiency?  Does lack of comprehending the nuances of what native speakers of the language would easily identify as a “rhetorical” question, nullify the nature of such a characterization merely by such failure of understanding, by one’s status as a foreigner, or is it completely and fully determined by the insular and unrevealed motive of the one who asks?  And if, of that person, we ask, “Did you mean the question to be one of a rhetorical nature?” — and the only response is a mysterious, unrecognizable smile, interpreted as either noncommittal or perhaps revealing vestiges of the insane — does it still make it so?

And what of the convoluted question, if there is no judge on the bench to direct the inquisitor to “rephrase the question”, as in: What time did you enter the victim’s home when you left your wet footprints on the white rug before you stepped on the tail of the poodle and waited before the dog yelped just as you plunged the knife for which you never said you were sorry, huh? “Huh” would be the correct response, of course, before the bench would ask for a rephrasing, or in anticipation of an objection to a “leading” question — but is not a “rhetorical” question one which is “leading”, also, and do the circumstances surrounding the query matter?  Does the fact that a leading question posed in a courtroom differ from one presented by a reporter during an interview, or by a parent to a child?

Often, questions tell more about the source than of the elicited destination.  When personal choices and private timings confer the greater influences upon the manner of the answer, the mere asking of the question may be an answer unto itself.

Thus, for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the question posed is often: Is it time for me to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits?  Or, should I wait until the Agency or the U.S. Postal Service completely destroys any quality in my life? This latter question, of course, is what can be deemed a “rhetorical” question, whether English is a second-language or a first.

As for the one preceding — well, of that unanswerable question that only the questioner can know, the mere asking of the question is telling as to the questioning nature of the answer left unanswered, like the baldness of the present king of France and the fact that there is no judge in the courtroom of common sense to direct the questioner to rephrase a question which is quite obvious by the mere asking of that question.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement Pension Annuity: Today, life is good…

It is the set of 3 periods at the end of the sentence, identified in grammatical terms as an ellipses, allowing for a trailing thought or a hesitation of motive, and here which differentiates from a singular finality of a period postulated to prevent a purposive punctuality of partition from a postscript.  If the last two periods were extracted and deleted, the delineation would connote a declarative assertion, unhesitant in conclusion, and confident in execution.  With those two additions, it implies and denotes hesitancy, a pause leaving the impression of loss or lack of confidence, and unable to determine the cogency of opinion formulated but for the ellipses.

In the end, however, how is grammar tied to life itself?  Do mere additions of two dots in a sentence reflect the reality of that which we live?  Do the bundles of human complexities, emotional upheaval and physical pain, cognitive dissonance cut us off from nature’s impenetrable divide?

How often do we walk around, and stop and realize that we remember nothing about our surroundings, who we passed, what buildings we strode by, because the inner thoughts we became a hostage to allowed only for sight by the eye of our own minds, and not for the purposes attributable to all other species on the planet — for observation and judgment to determine the course of future destiny, in surviving a predatory world.

What makes us unique, but the linguistic divide that confronts us daily; and thus is it that the 3 harmless dots dangling at the terminal confinement at the end of a sentence is more than a mirage of grammatical repose; no, it defines who we are.  For, the reality of the ellipses is contained in the reflection of the truth manifested; insert an emotive adjective, and the dots disappear; yet, the changes wrought will remain beyond the grammatical addendum, the deletion of the dots, or the conversion from hesitancy to declarative assertion of utmost confidence.

It is, in the end, the “today” which is the operative word, and not the trepidation engendered by the ellipses; and it is the unstated “tomorrow” which can bring about changes to the substantive undercurrent of life beyond linguistic elasticity.  It is real life, and not grammar, which must ultimately determine destiny, fate and the whims of gods playing with human caricatures with arbitrary thunderbolts and childhood cruelty with breaths of unexpected pillars placed as obstacles within our paths.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who find that the gods of fate have placed the burden of a medical condition upon life’s lottery of challenges, the need to prepare, formulate and apply 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, becomes an encounter where the linguistic divide between life and living, on the one hand, and language and grammar, on the other, coalesce and the the chasm must by necessity be bridged.  For, it is precisely the medical condition itself (life and living) which must then be formulated into a declarative state of disability and linguistic evidentiary postulate (language and grammar), in the form of an effective OPM Disability Retirement application, that makes for the differentiation between failure or success.

Beware of the pitfalls of grammar, and note the ellipses, as well as the dangling participle, lest either unveil a true hesitancy in living, as opposed to a mere red mark from a teacher in a fictional classroom, either in one’s mind or in the eye of one’s mind.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire