FERS Disability Retirement Law: The Patchwork of Life

It is an appropriate metaphor — of a hodgepodge (even the word itself reflects well the definition) — where the composition is made up of miscellaneous or incongruous parts, yet with the result possessing the potentiality of a fulfilled and even “beautiful” end-product.

The fact that it begins with incongruity and miscellany, doesn’t mean that the final and finished composition must by necessity reflect the unplanned or ill-fitting periods.  Much of life is like that — of spectrums representing imperfect and uncomfortable deluges of pegs trying to fit into round circumstances; but we have to make the best of it, and over time, the problems and frictions will ultimately resolve themselves.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows you to continue in your Federal or Postal career — perhaps this is another “patch” which must somehow fit into the long list of incongruity.  Well, so be it.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, and consider whether and how to fit the next ill-fitting piece into the whole of your life, so that when you look back, it will have been the perfect fit in a quilt of beauty.

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: Volume of Words

Modernity provokes a society of volume — volume of voices, volume of choices, volume of everything — even of words.  There are no “great words of fiction” in a neat little volume, like Hemingway’s “The Old Man and the Sea”; and the short story is a lost art, the last and greatest master of it being from Ireland (i.e., William Trevor).  The art of subtlety has vanished; the single sentence which evokes a plethora of thought and contentment, no longer available.

Volume of words does not replace content of substance — just listen to “talk radio” or the numerous shows on television and you will see that the goal is to “fill the void”, even if the “filler” has nothing substantive to say.  When have you ever heard someone say on a subject, “Oh, I have nothing to say about it because I haven’t given it much thought, yet”?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition and must consider preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, your Statement of Disability, the legal arguments you must make, and the medical documentation you must submit — all must rely upon the volume of words.

But such volume must also, by necessity in order to meet the legal criteria for eligibility under FERS Disability Retirement, be compiled and composed with precision, and not merely by a volume of words.  Contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, and recognize that the volume of words cannot ever replace the substance of content.

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 formulation

There is, first, the preparation; then, the formulation; and finally, the filing and the waiting.  Are the sequence of steps necessarily separate and identifiable — cleanly bifurcated such that there is no overlapping of concerns?  Of course not; but the three elements in a OPM Disability Retirement application are necessary for the successful outcome of the endeavor.

The “preparation” is often skipped in order to get to the “filling out the forms” portion, which is contained somewhere between the preparatory stage of the process, extends into the formative arena and comes to fruition just before filing, as the finishing touches are placed in refinement of the final product.

The analogies are numerous: of baking a cake — first, one must have a “recipe” (the preparatory stage of the process); then, in between the preparation and the formulation, one must gather all of the ingredients necessary to fulfill the recipe: i.e., the medical documentation; the legal citations to be applied; perhaps other ancillary supportive presentations; the Applicant’s Statement of Disability; and the multitude of other papers which will ultimately accompany the Federal Disability Retirement filing; then, the filing itself — of placing it into the oven and waiting while it bakes to final product.

It is, in many ways, the “formulation” part of it that fails the Federal employee or Postal worker putting together an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset — for, the rush to get it done is often comprised by a furious sense of desperation in gathering whatever medical records can be amassed in the shortest time possible; of quickly jotting down the things “wrong” with you on SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability; and then quickly “shoving” it into the oven hoping that it will bake quickly and come out well.

Yet, while the “recipe” is important, and the filing is crucial, it is the “formulation”of the OPM Disability Retirement packet — of the putting together in a thoughtful and persuasive manner the legal memorandum which cites the case-law, argues the evidence and providers a “road-map” for OPM to approve one’s Federal Disability Retirement application — that is often overlooked and becomes the unintended nemesis for a successful outcome in a OPM Disability Retirement application.

In skipping over that part —the formulation of a Federal Disability Retirement application — it is likened to that “uh-oh” moment when you realized that you had forgotten to put any butter, milk or other essential ingredients into the cake after you have already put it into the oven.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Adversity in B-Minor

But that we could live life as if playing a musical score, then changing the tonality in a different pitch, thereby perfecting a piece for the final performance.  Adversity is an unavoidable event; no matter the effort to avoid it, the encounter inevitably catches up to us.

Can we ever replay it, but in a different pitch?  Can the musical score be altered, but this time without the raised voices or the heightened stress?  What is it about a certain look, a particular tone, that gets one’s gander up; and while some are tone-deaf and wouldn’t be able to differentiate between a major or a minor score, does the same apply to social graces and the cues that trigger responses otherwise better to be left unsaid?

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, 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, becomes a necessity in the height of adversity, whether played in B Minor or C Major.

It always appears as if adversity can never be avoided.  First, there is the medical condition itself; then, to compound matters, making them worse, there is the pressure of the Agency; and suddenly, one feels as if the musical score so often rehearsed has fallen out of tune, and we begin to wonder if the chords played, the instruments used and the conductor followed, makes any sense at all.

The jumble of life is too often like the mixture of one analogy into another.

In order to sort out the proper “chord” to be played, it is important to consult with an attorney to sort out all of the elements in properly preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application: the documentation to be gathered; the guidance of how the narrative reports would be formulated; the legal memorandum that persuades and the entirety of the Federal Disability Retirement packet that is “effective”, leading to an approval by OPM.  Otherwise, your life may remain in adversity in B Minor, or some other discord unanticipated.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation on Federal Disability Retirement Claims: “As if”

Why are OPM’s denials of a Federal Disability Retirement application written “as if” it is an “all of nothing” proposition?  Conversely, why does an approval of a Federal Disability Retirement application (with the exception of the single sentence which identifies the medical conditions upon which the approval is based) reflect a regurgitation of a template used on countless occasions dating back decades?

Wouldn’t a more “honest” approach be for both the denial and an approval to have a touch of: “Well, okay, evidence X does clearly show that you likely couldn’t do essential element Y” and “Yes, all and all, despite having a good performance review in the past year, your absences aggregated to establish evidence that you weren’t able to maintain a satisfactory attendance, and therefore, even if it is a ‘close call’, we have decided that you have met the preponderance of the evidence criteria and grant you your disability retirement request” — or, “Therefore, even though it was a close call, we believe you have NOT met the preponderance of the evidence standard, and therefore deny your application for Federal Disability Retirement.”

In other words, why is the “as if” standard applied as a one-way street, where every Denial invokes a disparaging and often scoffing-tone as to every bit of evidence presented, and seems to selectively diminish even the most compelling of evidence submitted?  Is it because of the very human need for self-justification, or are there other, more nefarious reasons girding the foundation of every denial?

Certainly, when a “no” is presented, one is taught to make it worse than it actually is in order to justify the negation; sort of like when you really do feel deathly ill, but by all appearances, you don’t sound it, and may not even look it, so when you call in sick or you tell your mom you can’t make it to school, you put it on “as if” you are on the verge of mortality’s early calling.

But don’t be fooled.  OPM’s denials are presented “as if” you never stood a chance; “as if” there was never any basis for even making an effort to file; and “as if” you have wasted your time even bothering to file — is meant to discourage, if not dissuade, any further effort of fighting onward.  But that is not the reality of a Federal Disability Retirement case, whether you are under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset — for, the reason why you have multiple stages in which to fight on is precisely the reason why you must: “As if” you have a chance, and not “as if” you never did.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Legal Representation: Sad stories

Is sadness relative?  Are there sad stories that are so sad that even the ones that were considered sad prior to the sadder story being told, somehow nullify the lesser sad stories and make them into not sad stories?  Do we, after hearing the sadder tale, turn to the first story teller and say, “Yours was not so sad, after all, and in fact you have it pretty good”?

If a person tells of having just buried his mother, and you ask, “How old was she?”  He responds, “She was 95”.  Then, someone else says, “I just had to bury my 5 year old daughter.”  There would be a dead silence, would there not?  Surely, we say to ourselves, the death of a person who had a long life is not nearly as sad as the ending of one so tender in years, and as death is merely a part of life, there is something inherently sadder about the child’s life ending than that of a person who had a long life?

Both represent a life ended, but it is the knowledge that the former had fulfilled the natural course of a life while the latter was the victim of an early tragedy, unnaturally ended and interrupted for all of its promise, hope and anticipation for the future – surely, there is a qualitative difference between the two sad tales?

Or of someone who was recently fired from a job and is desperately trying to seek new employment; say that person is looking through the want-ads in the employment section (yes, yes, that is entirely outdated nowadays with special apps for resume-sharing and online submissions, etc.), and in the course of searching, reads a story about a far-off country where war, famine and general devastation are ongoing, and discovers with interest a sub-story about a family that is homeless and is being hunted down by enemies, etc.  Does one at that point straighten one’s posture and declare, “Wow, even though I am jobless, I have it pretty good in comparison to that family in country X”?

Yet, if sadness is relative, does that necessarily negate the sad tale completely, or does it merely reduce its impact and value until another comparative judgment is made?  Do we go and search out a less sad tale after debunking the sadness of one’s own with a sadder tale, in order to “restore” the sadness of our own?  Or, does each sadness remain a sadness in isolation regardless of the comparative sadness to another’s?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the sadness of that medical condition becomes such and to an extent where the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, it may become necessary to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, ultimately filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Sadness aside, every tale of ending a career is a sadness in and of itself, but the key to getting beyond any such sadness rests in the next steps, not in the footsteps of one’s past or those of others, but in getting good legal advice and moving on into the next phase of one’s future.  Anything else would, whether in comparison to another’s sadness or not, be the truly sad tale of sadness defined.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement: Anonymity of the Routine

Most people prefer anonymity; although, in more recent years, the hunt for one’s five minutes of fame by “hook or by crook”, whether to impose, intrude, push through, etc., and wave in front of a camera, or to perform some demeaning act to attract a byline in the Guinness Book of Records, has become a prevalence beyond mere happenstance exception.  Perhaps it is the age of Youtube, of selfie images and the need to see one’s portrait, name or reference reflected in the public domain, which belies the common quest for the mundane.

There was once upon a time when discretion and the desire for privacy pervaded; now, the anonymity of the routine is mere boredom, and the eternal quest for admiration, recognition, even ignoble acknowledgment, is preferable and actively sought.

For bureaucratic purposes, however, attempting to define by deliberate exceptionality, can be a two-edged sword.  For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, of course one wants to submit an OPM Disability application which “stands out” beyond the mere routine.  But that depends upon how one characterizes and defines that which is “routine”.

Medical conditions are unique by inherent definitional standards; and to “stand out” can take on multiple connotations. Certainly, excellence of preparation and formulation should be the overarching standard in the compilation and presentation of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application, submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.   But if by “being out of the mainstream”, one attempts to bring in irrelevant or immaterial facts or allegations which shock or otherwise disrupt merely for the sake of “standing out”, then the preferable methodology is to remain with the anonymity of the routine.

Federal Disability Retirement is a compensatory benefit which must be proven with medical facts, criteria-based argumentation, and a solid compendium of legal bridges established through coherence of information.

While the rest of the world may seek attention and approval, for the Federal or Postal employee preparing to submit an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through OPM, it is the anonymity of the routine, prepared through excellence of information and cogency of argumentation, which is preferable to the publicity stunts of last year’s forgotten tirades.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Lawyer: The Complexity of Unpredictability

Some view human behavioral unpredictability as a declaration of the underlying complexity; others would have it that, far from any such convoluted aspiration towards mystery and intricacy, a yawn and ensuing boredom more likely represents the determinism and simplicity of humans.

Which represents the true picture?  Perhaps youth and a naive lack of experience in encountering the universe of everyday conflict is what we discover in the spectrum of opinions; and cynicism abounds upon greater enmeshment and entanglement with the human condition.

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, the question often arises as to whom, when and the timing of divulging the intent to file.  As the saying goes, discretion is the greater part of valor; unless there is a compelling reason to do so, limiting the information where relevant; restricting the venue of information to the extent possible; and keeping mum until and unless necessary, should be the guiding principle.

Why?  Because, first and foremost, medical information (which is obviously the primary foundational basis of a Federal disability retirement application) is sensitive in nature, confidential in scope, and entails vast privacy concerns for all.  Further, one never knows how an agency and its representatives may react (thus the charge that human beings are complex in nature), but the predictability of big-mouths and lack of discretion (alas, the corollary charge of simplicity of humans) should restrain and constrain any urge to divulge earlier than necessary.

“Necessary” is the key word, and that applies to people, timing and context of dissemination of such confidential information.

For the Federal and Postal employee contemplating preparing, formulating and filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the general rule, always, should be to believe in both contradictory assertions:  Because human behavior is complex and unpredictable, be discreet in revealing information; and because human behavior is simplistic and unimaginative, similarly be discreet and restrained in providing sensitive information.

As one side of a coin is worth just as much as the other, it is best to feel the nature of two faces in a world replete with two-faces.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire