FERS Disability Retirement Application: Even in…

More and more, insanity appears to prevail and pervade everywhere, and thus do we all say, “Even in … “ Even in Japan, gun violence occurs; even in Copenhagen, mass shootings can happen; even in….  Why is it that nothing is ever contained within the locality of the occurrence?

Once upon a time, something which happened in another city, a different town, a far-away village, would only travel via a post-marked letter, with a newspaper clipping inserted within the letter — an envelope received from afar.   Nowadays, everything is instantaneous; for, with the internet, we have become that “global village” which the IT gurus have been pushing for, for so many years.

Will there come a time when some countries ban the use of electronic devices?  When the world of electronic devices were first invented, was a consensus taken, a vote given, a poll requested — as to whether anyone wanted this world?  Or, did the likes of Bills Gates, Steve Jobs and others simply dictate to us all that, whether we liked it or not, technology is here to stay, and all the while they can amass their wealth and laugh at the rest of society?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS because of a medical condition which now prevents the Federal or Postal worker from continuing in his or her career, fortunately, even in the Federal Government, there exists laws which protect the Federal and Postal employee’s rights when a medical disability no longer allows you to continue.

Such disability retirement benefits do not, more often than not, exist in private-sector or even state and municipal jobs.  So, to that extent, one cannot use the term, “Even in a private-sector job”, or “Even in State government jobs”, etc.

Contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, where even in this day and age, the Federal sector provides some good benefits for its employees.

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 Law: Self-Doubt

We all go through such periods.  Whether real or imagined — and, often, the latter is of greater exponential magnification than the former — our sense of worth; our confidence of competence; our capacity to “get things done”, begins to wane.  Perhaps it is merely a period of lesser productivity; or, of intervening personal difficulties or tragedies others cannot penetrate.

We engage in self-doubt, perhaps without even being aware of it.  It is often helpful to have a “significant other” or some close friend to be blunt and honest, and to provide an objective, unbiased perspective.  Sometimes, it just takes an unequivocal statement: “Joe, you’re being too hard on yourself. You are still the same person as before”.  Or: “Susan, maybe you made a mistake here and there.  Don’t let it get you down; everyone makes mistakes.”  But of a medical condition, the devastation can be, not only of reduced physical or cognitive capacities, but often the greater problem of self-doubt.

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 all of the essential elements of his or her Federal or Postal job, self-doubt can be a devastating residual aftershock resulting from the diminished capacity as a consequence of the medical condition itself.  It may be time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Contact a Federal Disability Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, lest self-doubt not only follows upon the medical condition itself but, moreover, turns upon itself into self-loathing.

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 Law: Foreign Lands

Reading essays about foreign lands is often challenging where reference points and contexts are often presumed.  One immediately reaches for one’s Smartphone in order to Google the locations in relationship to a country — is it in the south of France, close to Spain?  It is near Paris?

Why that matters is another issue — for, somehow, if we can recognize a known entity, it makes us more comfortable in reading further about a strange area unknown.  Even if we have never been to Paris, we recognize that it is a large metropolitan city and can therefore relate it to our own experiences.  Context is important; reference points to that which is familiar somehow makes for greater understanding, comprehension, and appreciation.

Entering or reading about foreign lands is somewhat akin to preparing an effective application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.  The entire concept is strange and foreign to somehow whose life has been dedicated to work and advancement.  To suddenly have to stop working because of a medical condition, and then to file for early medical retirement, is tantamount to traveling to a foreign land.

To be successful in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, it is advisable to contact a “tour guide” — a disability attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and thereby show you the familiar reference points in order to maneuver through the best sights, avoid the dangerous areas and pitfalls within the law, and to get you to the endpoint of the entire process: An approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

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 from OPM: Difficult versus Disabled

To the statement, “I am having greater difficulty in performing X, Y and Z” follows with the query: “But are you still able to?”

There is a conceptual distinction to be made between “difficult” as opposed to “disabled”.  Of course, the former may be an indication which may naturally and progressively lead to the latter, and may merely not be there, yet.

The operative word is “may” (a potentiality of disablement), here, as opposed to an established, present reality.  Or, it may be that the person speaking is misusing the language, and is trying to put the best face forward, and should have stated: “I cannot perform X and Y, and am having difficulty in doing Z”.

Human beings have a wide and strange capacity to endure and to cover things up.  Perhaps the person is having difficulty but no one sees it because he or she is simply “pushing through” and hiding the pain and disability quite well.  Or, perhaps the medical condition has approach a critical juncture where the impact of the medical condition is clearly manifesting itself to a point where Federal Disability Retirement needs to be contemplated.

In any event, the first step in making a valid, objective assessment in considering Federal Disability Retirement under FERS for Federal and Postal employees is to distinguish between “difficult” and “disabled” — where the former may not qualify you for FERS Disability Retirement, while the latter surely would.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement from the OPM: Careful Planning

Is there any other type?  Do we ever plan, but do it carelessly?  Or, is it a redundancy to ascribe any planning as being “careful”?  Another question, of course, is the manner in which we determine the basis of such planning; i.e., is it only a retrospective judgment that is made after the fact?  In other words, do we ascribe the designated title of “careful planning” only after things have gone smoothly, and that of “careless planning” when things have not?

When the boss pats you on the shoulder and says, “Good job” and you turn and smugly respond, “Well, it’s just a matter of careful planning,” is such a response appropriate only because things had turned well?  And when it does not, do you just say: “Well, despite careful planning, there were some unforeseen circumstances that arose and all we can do is to counter them as best we can”?

There is, of course, such an animal as “careless planning” — where one has engaged in the motions of planning a future course of events, but has not taken the time to think it through, plan alternative avenues for “handling a potential conflict”, or otherwise did not meticulously prepare for the upsides and downsides of potential difficulties.  And that is the key, isn’t it — to consider the options, take into account the possibilities, and to plan accordingly?

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 position, careful planning in the preparation, formulation and submission of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application is a “must”.

We all engage in retrospective confirmation of our actions, and the single telling factor of careful planning in a Federal Disability Retirement application is when you receive an “approval” from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Of course, when dealing with a Federal bureaucracy, a denial does not necessarily mean that careful planning was not engaged in, but merely that further planning and careful consideration must be given in order to battle with, and prevail, against OPM.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin to formulate the plans which will be most effective in obtaining your disability retirement benefits from OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Living Life’s Lessons

It is a conundrum to speak in such terms; for, one must step outside of one’s being in order to reflect upon “living” as something separate and distinct from what one does within the insular consciousness of one’s life; and to learn the “lessons” of life, and to live such lessons, is to have the capacity for detachment from a third-person perspective and not to be lost in the first-person consciousness.

Most of us simply “live life” without having a conscious sense of having an outsider’s perspective on how it is that we are “doing it”.  We believe that we are good at what we do; that we are efficient and fairly competent; and though there may be some mistakes made along the way, we can passably waive such moments away with the dismissive truism that, “Well, to err is human; to forgive, divine” — a line from Alexander Pope’s “Essay on Criticism”.

The concept of living life’s lessons must necessarily entail a more objective view of ourselves than the purity and insularity of one’s life as lived from a personal-pronoun “I” perspective.  It requires the capacity to “step outside” of one’s self, to view the self as a third party, to then apply lessons learned both from life’s gifts as well as misgivings, then to adjust that “other person” accordingly, and only thereafter, to proceed to step back into the self and proceed with the modifications and adaptations proposed.  Otherwise, we just blunder through as most people do, and continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers seeking to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, “living life’s lessons” and the capacity to step outside of the first-person and into the third-person is an important element for preparing an effective OPM Disability Retirement application.  For, to have an “objective” viewpoint is essential in putting together a persuasive Federal Disability Retirement application — in writing one’s Statement of Disability; of recognizing the sequence of events, medical conditions and evidentiary legal citations to include; and, more importantly, in maneuvering through the complex administrative process of a bureaucratic morass.

In the end, living life’s lessons may come down to simple adages that one has already learned, but perhaps forgotten — not the least of which is that a person who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS Disability Retirement Attorney

 

Filing for FERS Disability Retirement: The identity of choice

In the end, do we?  That is — do we have a choice when it comes to our identity?  Of course, in this day and age where word-play has become completely malleable, and where Truth and Falsity rarely matter except when tested against the exigencies of the objective universe (i.e., as when crossing a street and someone says, “Be careful, a bus is coming”, and you suddenly realize that the truth or falsity of such a statement can actually have real-life consequences), the question becomes: How does one define one’s use of the word, “identity”?  Is it based upon the aggregation of objective and subjective statements, beliefs, opinions and perspectives?

In other words, are we merely the compendium of cumulative voices based upon: Our birth certificate; the driver’s license in our wallets; the memories retained by our parents, grandparents and relatives; how our friends view us; what our spouses believe us to be; what the neighborhood dogs recalls from sniffing at our feet — the cumulative aggregation of all of such factors?  Is who we are — our “identity” — different from who we believe we are?  If everyone believes X to be such-and-such but X believes himself to be a secret agent working for a mysterious foreign entity, what (or who) determines the reality of our identity?  Or, is “identity” based upon the collective perspective of a community that “knows” that individual?  Can we “choose’ our identity, and if so, completely or only partially?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition where the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to continue to work in one’s Federal or Postal job, there is often a concomitant “identity crisis” that accompanies the medical condition.  No longer are you the stellar worker for the Federal Agency; no longer are you the reliable provider who slogs through the daily toil as a Postal employee; instead, your identity is one of having a medical condition that limits, prevents, subverts or otherwise alters the way in which you live.

Filing for FERS Disability Retirement becomes an alternative that must be chosen, and that “choice” may alter who you are and what others may think about you.  But in the end, you do have a choice: The essence of who you are remains always within; the identity of choice is not altered merely because you file for a benefit that must be pursued because of a medical condition that was incurred through no fault of your own; and anyone who thinks otherwise never knew you to begin with.  For, in the end, the identity of choice was and remains always within the purview and power within each of us; we just didn’t know it.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Information: OPM’s Methodology

There may be a single criteria to meet, with subsets of requirements that must be complied with; yet, multiple methodologies in approaching the singular.  How can that be?  Isn’t it all simple, where you read what is required, then gather up all of the evidence that appears to meet it and simply send it all in?  That is the “volume methodology”.

Can a single sentence in a medical report ever meet the legal criteria in an OPM Disability Retirement case — i.e., a “qualitative” methodology, as opposed to a quantitative one?  Sometimes.

Isn’t the law clear in what is required, and isn’t it a matter of just amassing the medical evidence to meet the requirements as stated?  Hmmm…. For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical conditions prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it is important to understand, somewhat, OPM’s Methodology in reviewing and deciding upon a case.

First of all, not all medical conditions are equal.  Perhaps that is self-evident, but for the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from one or another medical condition, and must endure the daily pain, restriction and limitations imposed thereby, it may not be so self-evident.

Second, OPM is not some “neutral” Federal Agency that reviews a Federal Disability Retirement application with dispassionate objectivity, ready to grant an “approval” because you “believe” your medical evidence is “sufficient” to meet the legal requirements as stated.  Sufficiency is the gatekeeper that denies many a Federal Disability Retirement case — and it is not a methodology that is satisfied by quantitative (volume) means, not even necessarily by qualitative standards; rather, it is the reviewer (i.e., the “Medical Specialist” at OPM) who determines by some unknown and unknowable standard when the goal-post has been crossed.

Thus, in an OPM Disability Denial Letter, one may read a reference to one’s doctor’s note or a quotation from a medical report from one’s doctor, and think, “Good, this is very supportive” —then, with an appended end to the paragraph stating, “Such medical evidence does not sufficiently meet the standards to qualify for OPM Disability Retirement”.  Huh?

Think about it this way: “Sufficiency” may mean different things to different audiences; for example, what is a “sufficient” amount of food for a lion, as opposed to a domesticated kitten?

OPM’s methodology is, at best, malleable, as language in law is likewise changeable.  It is good to know this for Federal and Postal employees who are either getting ready to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, or who are in the middle of a fight to obtain it; for, in the end, consulting with an OPM Disability Retirement lawyer allows you to arm yourself with knowledge for the battle that OPM’s Methodology in determining Federal Disability Retirement cases must be prepared, like any legal battle that involves “criteria” to be interpreted.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Attorney Representation OPM Disability Retirement: Thinking it through

What does the concept even mean?  When we guide the child with such a statement, we are asking that the formative years of impulsive reactivity pause for a moment to try a different approach.

“Think it through” – is an admonition to figure out the tangled web of problems by applying a sequential, logical methodology where frustration should not impede, and when patience becomes the friend of success.

“Thinking it through” is a reminder that there is indeed a solution, but sometimes the problem will only be sorted out if some further time is given in reflective pose, or Sherlock Holmes-like investigative intuition based upon the scientific paradigms of rationality.  Yet, one must also be reminded of the fact that “solutions” to problems do not always lead to satisfactory conclusions; sometimes, there are a finite set of alternatives, and no one of them may be an option that one delights in.

But, then, life is often like that, isn’t it?

We are beset and faced with a challenge; we review them, thinking each one through, and in the end, we face a dilemma where the solutions offered or revealed are not necessarily the ones we like; nevertheless, we must choose, like entering into an ice cream parlor at the end of a summer’s day only to find that all of the favorite flavors are gone and we are left with rhubarb spice and cotton-candy mixed with peanut butter drops – somehow, not the best of combinations and understandably left for those who came too late.

Then, of course, there are the questions for everyone who posits the answers as “thinking it through” – does the person have the sufficient knowledge and preparatory tools to actually figure out the problem?  Or, are there necessary pre-performance insights that must be gathered first, before the proverbial “key” can be used to solve the problem?

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 positional duties, the question of “whether” to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is best left to the Federal or Postal employee who recognizes the wisdom of the incompatibility between the Federal or Postal job and the medical conditions suffered.

It is only the “how” to file that needs some “preparatory” work and knowledge; for, that part of it involves the law, the regulatory morass and the bureaucratic complexity of submitting the 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.

For the latter, “thinking it through” may not be possible without the insight and knowledge of a Federal Disability Retirement attorney who specializes in that field of law exclusively.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire