FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Defining Moments

The phrase can have multiple meanings.  It can mean, for example, that an individual is engaging in the act of defining a particular moment, or a series of moments — say, for purposes of writing a novel, or to make sure that he or she memorializes the moment in his thought processes for future reference.

Thus, in being introduced to someone and engaging in a conversation, someone might be asked, “So what do you think of so-and-so”, and as you struggle to define the moment, you might use various adjectives to describe the encounter.  In such an instance, the person doing the defining might recognize what he is doing, and mutter to himself, “Let me define this moment.”

Or, the phrase, “Defining Moments” might be applied in a more “objective sense” — that an event, an occurrence or some mishap was one of the “defining moments” of one’s life, meaning thereby, that the event had some profound impact upon one’s character, existence or approach to future actions.

Thus, an individual who once was a workaholic but had a near-death experience, who then gave up his career and became a lowly clerk in order to radically alter his lifestyle, might say of that experience that it was a “defining moment”.  The phrase itself can therefore be seen as either an “internal” event or an “external” one or, to put it another way, a “subjective event” or an “objective” one.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where that medical condition must lead to a change of careers and thus the proper and effective preparation of an FERS Disability Retirement application must be initiated, the term “Defining Moment” can be applied in both senses of the phrase.

For, the medical condition itself is a defining moment (in the objective, external sense), and the initiating of a Federal Disability Retirement application is also defining the moment — in the sense that the Federal or Postal employee who recognizes the need to make a change by preparing, formulating and filing an effective FERS Disability Application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, has recognized the need to define the moment (internal, “subjective” thought process) in order to be able to focus upon the priority of one’s health.

In either phraseology-usage, it may also be a defining moment to contact a Federal or Postal Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest the defining moment of a denial from OPM makes for a further definition of the defining moment: Of a legal fight against a bureaucracy that often represents the battle between David and Goliath.

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.

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: Success or Failure

We tend to overstate such concepts.  Life is never static; the measure of a person’s character, career, family or friendships cannot be conclusively determined by some global, singular standard.  There is a spectrum to be applied — of periods where a measure of success is attained, and other times when some judgment of failure may be appropriate.

Rarely can an entire life be measured by such an all-encompassing criteria.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are preparing to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is often an apologetic attitude which prevails — the very same attitude which compelled you to delay filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits to your own detriment, health-wise and with consequences to your family.

Somehow, you “feel” guilty, as if you are letting others down; that you have worked all of your life and you don’t “deserve” to access a benefit such as Federal or Postal Disability Retirement benefits.  Bosh! (One can, of course, think of more colorful language, but perhaps we should keep it clean, here).

Federal Disability Retirement is a contractual benefit which you signed on to when you became a Federal or Postal employee and met the 18-month minimum threshold for being a Federal or Postal employee.  You have every right to file for it and access that benefit if you meet the eligibility criteria.  No need for apologies.  No need for guilt. It is not a measure of whether you are a success or a failure.

Contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of submitting a successful OPM Disability Retirement application, lest you allow yourself one more day of wrong-headed thoughts about success or failure.

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.

 

Postal & Federal Employee Disability Retirement from the OPM: Knowing the Issues

Without that knowledge, you are going into the arena of legal battle in a blind state, at a disadvantage, and with a high susceptibility of being defeated.  Not knowing what the issues are is like engaging in a frontal assault without having first scouted the position of the enemy — their strength; the terrain; the weapons they possess; their numbers; what fortifications they have established, etc.

You can take a shotgun approach — of guessing at what potential issues may arise — and address them with generalizations and attempted musings of preemptive arguments, but if you don’t know what the issues are, how will you specifically address them, even in a prefatory manner?

In preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, it is important to not only know what the issues are, but to address them in a preemptive way by citing the case-laws which apply.  Each OPM Disability Retirement case has general case-law citations which are always applicable — Bracey v. OPM, for instance.  But then there are specific case-law citations which should be tailored to the unique circumstances of your individual case.

That is why consulting and hiring an effective OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law is important — so that you do not engage OPM blindly, but with a full view of what you are facing, the issues which need to be addressed, and the confidence that you have given yourself the best chance at success.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Federal & Postal Disability Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Parting Ways

Friendships will, sadly, sometimes result in it; husbands and wives, though with children, too often embrace it for selfish reasons; and companies and their employees come to that flashpoint because of divergent interests, better offers or loss of confidence in visions no longer convergent in future goals and aspirations.

Medical conditions, as well, often have consequences where parting ways must be considered.  Can the medical condition be accommodated?  Is the Federal employee’s performance becoming unacceptable?  Is attendance becoming a problem?  Is his or her conduct impeding the mission of the Federal agency or the Postal unit?

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 perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, “parting ways” is often a gradual process involving realization, acceptance, and concrete steps required in order for the final transition to actually occur.  Filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application is one way to complete the process of parting ways.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of parting ways by preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS Disability Retirement Lawyer

  

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: The elixir of life

Is the substance we expunge necessarily the opposite of the positive?  Does the mere fact of expiation denote that which is unwanted, or merely no longer of utility?

In ancient times, an elixir was considered to be a substance of great desirability; it possessed multiple meanings, including a reference to that substance which was used in alchemy to alter base-metals into the gleaming riches of the natural order found deep beneath the chasms of the earth – gold.  Or, alternatively, it meant the potion or mysterious concoction that prolonged and extended life into an eternity of ecstasy; and in other definitions, a curative medicine that attended to all diseases, corrected every malady felt and balanced the unbalanced humors within the human body.

A further meaning has encompassed the concept of an essential principle – that core of something that provides an Aristotelian connection of all first causes such that when one discovers and comprehends the elixir of life, one has attained a pinnacle of wisdom next to the gods who otherwise mock the foolishness of human suffering and striving.  But back to the original query: What about the waste that is squeezed from the substance we desire – of human detritus, urine, scatological excretions and the leftovers of those thought to be unproductive; are they not necessary in that, without the capacity to expiate, it would rot within the cavities of the human tissue and destroy the very fabric that retains them?

We often fail, at the expense and detriment of our own thoughtlessness, to consider an inversion category of the original posit; we accept, at face value, that human functions of expiation and riddance constitutes just that – of throwing away, expunging, extricating and discarding – as a categorization we simplify into elementary concepts: what we consume and embrace is “good”, and that which we expiate is “bad”.

Thus do we build toilets in unassuming locations within a residence; outhouses are just that – some dilapidated structure constructed away from the home, and somewhat upwind from the wind currents that carry the daily odors of life’s contrariness.  But is that the proper way to view things?  Should we not, instead, liken our activities to that which a messianic proverb once elicited: How we treat the least among us reflects the true character of our inner nature?

Inversion thinking is a process that is too often overlooked, and because of this, we often walk through life passing by opportunities and gifts otherwise there to be accepted.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition no longer allows for one to continue with the present course of a Federal or Postal career, it was once believed that the elixir of life was intricately wrapped up in continuing the Federal or Postal job because it allowed for a certain career, standard of living and measure of self-worth.

This is where inversion thinking needs to be considered.  For, at what cost, and what price to be paid?

Preparing 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, is often a necessary step in order to attain a level of continence such that the proper balance and focus can be reached – of one’s health, as opposed to continuing in a job that has become harmful; of separating from Federal Service or the Postal facility in order to escape from the daily harassment of somehow being “lesser” because of one’s medical condition; and all of the other garbage that is thrown at the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from a medical condition.

For, the elixir of life is not always that substance we thought was the pathway to a mythological fountain of youth, but an inversion of that thought – of removing, as opposed to taking more on; of separating, in contradistinction to enduring the pain; and of expiating, in contrast to accepting.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Tomorrow’s project delayed

We tend to delay that which we know is best for us, and embrace the moment for which we pay a dear price.  Man was created to engage projects; a purpose for life, a value for living, a reason to live.  Why it is important to initiate, continue, accomplish and involve, are considerable in quantity:  to make a living; to be compensated for work employed; to create and construct for the betterment of community and the greater world; and not merely because Heidegger posits that it is to avoid our mortality and the inevitability of our fate.

It is a worthwhile endeavor, and not something to be ashamed of.  It is, however, when the focus upon tomorrow’s project becomes all-consuming such that it takes priority over health, family and self-preservation that something becomes dangerously and irrationally askew, then such prioritizing of life’s opportunities is undermined by an obsessive culture of a singular focus towards self-destruction.

Tomorrow’s project may need to be delay, or abandoned altogether.  Whether we make decisions in life by prioritizing through some category of rationality, or life forces such rearrangements by the compelling introduction of sickness, deterioration of health, or a traumatic turn of events, issues delayed or otherwise avoided tend to come back to remind, irritate or others demand.

There is never an end to human projects; if fear of exhausting the human capacity to devise is ever questioned, such a query is akin to puzzlement of philosophical questions consistent throughout Western history – each generation revives the conundrums of the past precisely because that is what it means to be human.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, there is no difference in kind or type; like all other workers and bee-like busy-ness in this universe of activity, the list of “tomorrow’s” projects is long and often left to a haphazard delineation not intended to be categorized in any rational priority of accomplishments.

Events, however, tend to force things upon us otherwise left unattended, and preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is often one of those “tomorrow” projects cast aside to be delayed – until that life event compels action.  Perhaps the delay is rationally-based; perhaps it is a procrastination of necessity; or, more likely, a necessity that is avoided like the plague of yesterday until the symptoms of decay and destruction compel the magnification to the forefront of our lives.

Admitting and submitting to an inevitable concern previously left for tomorrow is never a pleasant concession, but at some point, tomorrow’s project delayed – especially the necessity to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management – may become today’s necessary action required immediately; and, in that event, it may be wise to seek the counsel of a lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer

Federal Disability Retirement: What to do

Does anyone really know what to do?  From the very beginning, we are brought into this world without having been asked, and never with any instructions entitled, “Life instructions in ‘how to’”.  Instead, we are thrown into the ravages of this impervious universe.  We are lucky if we have some kind parents; otherwise, as with most of us, they are as clueless as we are, and sometimes even more so.

What do we do with the rest of our lives?  How do we determine if the course we have chosen is worthwhile?  When do we determine if the choices presented are the ones that will forever be offered, or will others come along after we have long committed to the limited ones we face?  Who tells us if what we are doing is “right”, and does the concept of “right” or “wrong” even matter, anymore”?

When problems arise, who do we turn to?  Do we turn to the priesthood that has been forever discredited, to the shamans who drive in expensive cars, or the Wall Street wolves who live in mansions afforded upon the backs of ordinary people?  And since parents are now told that honesty about their own lives are important in feeding the ingredients of success for their children, do we count on them to give us the same clueless directions that we can expect of ourselves?

Who knows anything, anymore, in any expectantly significant or relevant way, other than the puffery we encounter in our daily lives?  And when medical conditions interrupt and intervene – who tells us what path to take; where we go with the career choices given; and what about the legal issues that arise when it concerns a Federal or Postal worker under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset?  What to do – isn’t that the question we always have to ask ourselves?  And how do we know if the choices we make are the right ones, the wrong ones, or perhaps just “the best under the given circumstances”?

It is important to know; relevant to apply the correct criteria; significant for understanding the issues that need resolution; knowing what to do, how to do it and when to begin.  Medical issues that arise make for hard questions that need relevant answers.  And when the medical issues themselves impede, interrupt and intervene in negatively impactful ways, they exacerbate the capacity and ability to arrive at the proper judgments, and make it that much harder to decide.

Maybe there is no “right” answer, but only some minimal instructions and restrictive directions.  Whatever the case may be, in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is important to gain some initial insight and directions on what to do, and that may require seeking a lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: Expectations beyond the norm

We begin the nascent origins of remembrances expecting greater things beyond the normal levels of reality; that is what we now define as a “good childhood” as opposed to a lesser, or even an ordinary one to bear and be burdened with.

We are admonished that we can “be anything”; that potentiality and possibility (is there even any conceptual clarity of distinction between the two, anymore, and what of the third in its trifecta – of probability?) are limitless; that, like child prodigies of yore, each of us are “special” (query:  if everyone is special, does the concept itself lose all meaning, as in the philosophical conundrum of nihilism, where if you believe in nothingness, where can there be a “something” to lend it any meaning at all?) and defined by the uniqueness of our own boundaries superimposed by society, artificial constructs and unattainable hopes and dreams.

With that baggage of certainty to failure, we begin to travel life’s inestimable travails and untried valleys of difficult terrain.  Yet, we call that a good childhood.  By contrast, we ascribe bad parenting to the cynic who treads upon the fragile soul of a child:  “Chances are, you’ll never amount to anything”; “You’re never going to be able to do that, so why try?” (said to a 16 year old who has stunted growth trying to dunk a ball); “Don’t waste your time; you don’t have the talent for it, anyway.”  These comprise, constitute and reflect emotional harm and verbal abuse, by the standards of today.

We are never supposed to discourage, but always to encourage; never to allow for the reality of an impervious universe to influence, but rather, to always create a fantasy of potentiality and possibility of hope and perspective of the impossible.  But what of encounters with strangers and angels disguised as visiting anonymity?  Do we say to the child, “You are special; all people are special; as special people all, welcome all”?  No, instead we preface warnings, admonish with goblins and ogres beneath every bed, and scare the hell out of kids – which, by the way, is also considered good parenting.  And thus do we become adults, weighed down by the baggage of heavy biases towards the realities of life.

Most of us realize, at some point, that being “special” merely means that we are ordinary human beings living quite monotonous lives, and that only celebrities, politicians and the once-in-a-lifetime Bob Dylan truly fit into that category of uniqueness.  Happiness is the expectation dashed, evaluated, then accepted; and that it’s all okay.  Then, when a medical condition hits, it makes it all the more so; for, as children, we also expected that our mortality was nothing more than something well into an obscure future, always touching others but never ourselves.

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 position, the reality of our own vulnerabilities and fragile nature begins to set in.  Expectations beyond the norm have to be compromised.  Dreams once hoped for and hopes once dreamed of require some modifications.  But that’s all okay; health is the venue for hope, and without it, there isn’t even a whiff of dreaming for tomorrow’s moment.

Prepare well the Federal Disability Retirement application.  It is okay to be ordinary, and to recognize the fragility of human life and health, for it is the latter that needs to be protected in order to dream of a future where a summer’s day dozing on a picnic blanket will fulfill all expectations beyond the norm.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Preparing for more than a ‘maybe’

We never engage a project with just a ‘maybe’; to do so is to invite a preemptive failure, of sorts.  On the other hand, there are rarely any guarantees in life; just as the victims of Madoff and other historical figures of thievery; a ‘sure thing’ is rarely that, and more likely its counterintuitive opposite.  Chances and opportunities of a lifetime, of course, are touted as ‘maybes’ that should be considered.

Those stories abound of youthful vigor in the parent’s basement tinkering with innovations that will alter the future course of technology and mechanized futuristic inventions; but of that, was it really a ‘maybe’?  Or, as such young stars never had anything to lose, anyway, except for time and the clutter residually left behind in the parent’s basement, any sudden abandonment or stoppage due to lack of progress would have simply meant that the endeavor itself was merely a minor intermission, a brief pause, in an otherwise brighter future for the young to pursue.

No, we don’t deliberately prepare for a ‘maybe’; we may forewarn failure by uttering words that appear tentative; but in almost all instances, we prepare for more than a ‘maybe’.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are beginning the process of preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, how does one enhance the chances of a successful outcome, as opposed to being subjected to the whims of an Administrative Specialist at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management?

Does one merely gather up one’s treatment records and medical notes, and hope for the best?  Do you simply answer the questions on SF 3112A as if there were no legal ramifications inherent in the form of the questions posed?  Do you just take the SF 3112C to your doctor and have the doctor submit whatever his or her medical opinion is, to your Human Resource Office?

There are rarely guarantees in life – that is true, and it is never more so when filing a Federal Disability Retirement application with OPM.  At the same time, however, no one merely prepares for the lesser standard of a ‘maybe’, and in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, it is best to always prepare for more than a ‘maybe’, even if it is less than a guarantee of a sure thing.

Then, again, those who invested with Bernie Madoff also thought that it was a ‘sure thing’, and look where they ended up.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire