FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: Time to Heal

Depending upon where you place the verbal accent to accentuate one or the other of the 3 words strung together, the phrase can have different meanings.  There is a time to heal; it takes time in order to heal; over a stretch of time, healing may occur; as time passes, the trauma becomes less powerful, and healing takes time.

Time and distance allows for acceptance to occur.  The regularity of a person’s absence or that of a beloved pet, allows for habit to incorporate the missing “other”.  Death, as a finality of non-existence, is something which modernity attempts to avoid.

Yes, we read about it in the obituaries, and recognize that it happens every day, all around us; but in an antiseptic universe where we insulate ourselves from the objective world by getting lost in the virtual universe of Smart Phones, Computers, and the idolization of youth — we avoid the natural occurrence of mortality’s end.

Our encounter with Being, as Heidegger would put it, is the regular avoidance of choice by engaging in human projects in an effort to “forget” the teleological result of our state of being; and so we need time in order to heal from the recognition of the extinction of others, lest our own imaginations fail to save us.

Time was, because of famine and disease, a family of a dozen could see death of at least a few, but modern medicine has cured us of that calamity — until the pandemic reminder of recent vintage.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition reminds you daily of the need to heal, time is unfortunately not on your side.  The daily grind of your work doesn’t allow you to heal.  Healing needs time away and time in and of itself in order to allow for healing to occur.

Contact a Federal Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider that Federal Disability Retirement benefits will allow you to focus upon your health, and allow Time to Heal.

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 Medical Retirement: Indicators and the Berkeley Problem

Are other people’s private thoughts different from ours?  Or, is “existence” defined as Berkeley attempted to clarify it?

George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, was a brilliant 18th Century Metaphysician who effectively criticized Descartes, Malebranche, Locke and others; and, although he is often considered a “second-tier” philosopher, was logically sound in his defense of Idealism.

His famous precept — Esse est percipi (“To be is to be perceived”) — is often simplistically attacked by arguing thus: “So, what you are saying is that, once I leave the room, the room I left no longer exists because I am not perceiving it, anymore.”  No, not quite; no more than a person’s thoughts no longer exist once the conversation ends.

Berkeley’s conception of “existence” encompasses not only the worlds we directly perceive, but also the ones which we have perceived and can potentially perceive.  And his philosophical approach is more relevant today than ever before, as we insulate ourselves on computers and Smart phones, where “reality” is almost entirely encompassed by the confined universe of the surreal and virtual meta-universe of the Internet.

For many Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, the indicators and the Berkeley Problem persist: For many, whether psychiatric conditions or chronic pain, the “reality” of such medical conditions are “subjective” — meaning, they do not exist because they cannot be perceived.

But “perception” encompasses the conceptual arena of “feelings”, as well, and while OPM may attempt to dismiss your claims for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, they are clearly unaware that this attorney — the one writing this blog piece — wrote his Masters’ Thesis on the Berkeley problem — and is well aware of how to counter OPM’s lame arguments.

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 Disability Benefits under FERS: Within the Wrong Context

We see and hear people using that excuse all the time: “I was taken out of context”; “You misunderstood me because you took my statement out of context”, etc.  Thus, a statement may be only partially quoted, or the physical misdeed may only be narrated without a “before or after”, making the “context” an important clue as to the truth of either the statement or the physical imagery.

For example, a person might say, “I love X, but he/she can sometimes be annoying because of his/her insistence upon doing things right.”  Now, if a person instead merely conveys that Y thinks that X is “annoying,” such a statement — while true — takes it “out of context” by leaving out the prefatory and “additional” statements made.  Certainly, the defense of “you took it out of context” is quite applicable, here.

Similarly, if a picture of X is taken — of a person clad only in his underwear, carrying a bat and looking like a madman — and is posted on the Internet with the subtitle: “Beware! Neighbor Stalks the Neighborhood Like a Madman!” — without explaining that he had been suddenly awakened by a noise downstairs, got up, saw two burglars breaking into his home, picked up a baseball bat and began chasing them outside of his home and — just as he stepped onto his front lawn in hot pursuit, the neighbor from across the street with whom he had had some unpleasantries over the years took a picture of him in this compromising appearance; well, you get the picture (yes, pun intended).  It would, of course, constitute a “taken out of context” moment, would it not?

Now, for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows you to perform all of the essential elements of your job duties, your situation is somewhat like being “taken out of context”.  For, you were hired to do a job when you were healthy.  Once your health began to deteriorate, the “context” (i.e., your once healthy self) has been “taken out” to the extent that your medical conditions are no longer compatible with continuation in your job.  That is “The Law” of OPM Disability Retirement.

Contact a FERS Disability Retirement Lawyer and begin to put yourself into the proper context; for, within the wrong context, you are clearly no longer able to do your job.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS Disability Retirement Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Happiness Lasting

Can the precipice of elation last for long?  What of contentment — a seemingly “lower-level” joy that pervades and remains for the duration of a season?  Does evidence of its durability depend upon a smile frozen upon one’s face, or can it continue to establish its existence with gleaming eyes and a perpetual grin that seems never to go away?  Is glee in youth different from a winter’s discontent followed by a summer of joy, and does a period of happiness fostered by nostalgia the same as two young lovers who proclaim the currency of an unfettered passion for life?

Modernity celebrates the cult of youth, and it is thus assumed that happiness is the sole possession of those who look and declare youthfulness; but in the end, is it just wasted energy that dissipates because the young have no knowledge of how to handle such emotional turbulence?  What does it mean to “be happy”, and should it ever be considered as a worthwhile “goal” as opposed to a byproduct of a life well lived?

When a person feels elation, should the advice be: Temper it, for such a spectrum of heights will never last and you will find its opposite and negative effect at the end of it all — of dread and dismal desolation.  Or, should one just enjoy it while it exists, and deal with its opposite when it comes about?

Aristotle’s approach of finding the middle ground — of a moderation of temperament and approach to life — may allow for happiness lasting precisely because the height and depths of the spectrum of human emotions are never allowed to consume us.

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, the idea that happiness lasting can no longer be attained is a pervasive feeling because of the medical condition itself and the effects upon one’s life and career.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS may not be the “solution” to attain happiness, but it can be a process where intermediate goals can be achieved — of what to do during the pendency of one’s medical condition; of how to change careers; of how to attain a sense of stability for the future while attending to one’s own health and well-being.

It is a means to an end, where happiness lasting can be seen in the short-term goal of securing one’s future by filing for, and obtaining, a FERS Disability Retirement annuity before the next set of challenges in life’s fulfillment of changing circumstances must be faced again.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement from Working with the Federal Government: Originality

It is a frightening word; for, it is what we all strive for, yet almost always fall short, fail or attempt to justify and obfuscate for not quite reaching that goal.

Fortunately, there are at least two, but likely an infinite number of, avenues of avoidance in being charged with its lack:  First, and fortunately, plagiarism is not a criminal offense and, moreover, no one really seems to care except in the most egregious of instances, and furthermore, for those professing to be constrained by Catholic orthodoxy, it isn’t even a venial sin, let alone a mortal one.

Second (and ad infinitum as to the corollaries, so that we do not have to go beyond the phrase, “And secondly” or engage in the Internet’s most popular search engine contrivances that always includes, “Five ways to..” or the “Ten most important…”), there is always an excuse for its lack, beginning with:  “Well, I did the best I could”; “It’s not so important to be unique as to feel good about yourself”, and the dead ringer:  “There is no originality left; everything has already been spoken for.”

Is that why the period between “the original” and “the remake” keeps becoming shorter and shorter?  Is it an unavoidable truism that – from themes and plots for stories, novels and other similar genres, to television shows and movies, as well as songs and artworks – there is a limit of finite constraints that even human creativity cannot avoid?

History reveals that originality of profound dimensions will arise in spurts and burps; from Continental Europe’s juggernaut of painters and writers, to America’s continuum of astounding literary greats including Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Updike to Vonnegut; and, in the great tradition and power of the Russian novelists and playwrights, from Dostoevsky to Chekhov and multiple others, without even reaching back to centuries preceding, the originality of works steeped in profound insights cannot be denied.

Has modernity followed a similar course, or has the bludgeoning of unceasing informational overload tempered the capacity of human creativity?

There is a known, coy quip about the formulaic recipe for great literary or visual works:  “Have a terrible childhood, and write about it.”  Thus, such a perspective is reinforced by Dickens and other coconspirators.  A cousin to that rule is to live through political turmoil under repressive circumstances, and the validation for that is revealed by Eastern European and South American writers of current vintage, especially now that translations have been improved and perfected.

For Federal Gov. employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the concern about originality should enter but only in a cursory manner.

Facts must guide; the evidence will prevail.

In preparing answers to the connivances of questions required on SF 3112A (a form known as the Applicant’s Statement of Disability), do not try to be “original” in writing the narrative of one’s life, medical conditions and the impact upon one’s positional duties.

Remember always the other quip that must be recognized:  That each individual is already a paradigm of the original, and while the narrative engaged may not always be unique, and the reviewer at OPM may have “seen one and seen them all”, it is nevertheless one of a kind whether recognized and acknowledged by others, precisely because the life-experiences the Federal Disability Retirement applicant has endured has been nothing but original in the first instance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: The measure of sincerity

How do you measure a concept?  By application of, or comparison with, another?  Or, does it require a meta-application — an algorithm from a different dimension?  We measure linear horizontal distances by coordinated precision of segmentation, and vertical sedimentary deposits by arc designs manifested and revealed in nature; so, what of conceptual distances and chasms of thoughts?

Can more words validate the sincerity of previously spoken words merely uttered in an informal setting of pleasantry and conversational discourse?  Does a track record of broken promises undermine the sincerity of future intentions conveyed by more words?  Does volume, either in the form of numerical countenance or in terms of decibels emitted, change the validity, tone or tonal significance of a person’s overt meaning?  Can a person state one belief at one moment, in a slice of time of historical irrelevance, where only private ears can confirm the spoken words; then, in the very next instance, make a public declaration affirming the very opposite of what was previously made known to a microcosm of friends and associates, and still cling to a claim of consistency, logical and rational thought processing, ignorance of any hypocritical intent, and sincerity as well?  How many chances does a person have, before words become meaningless by means of consistent refutation and reversal of one’s stated intent overturned by further disputation?

In the world of practical living, of course, each individual applies a threshold of judgment and determination.  The test and measure of sincerity is not to merely pile on more words upon previously-uttered communication; rather, it is actions which follow upon declared intent which confirms the validity of a meaningful statement.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who state that he or she is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional duties, action must follow upon words of medical significance.  If a medical provider advises that continuation in a certain profession or duties required by a position in the Federal sector or the U.S. Postal Service is prevented because of a medical condition, then thoughts, words, conceptual daydreaming and wishful thinking are no longer enough.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S.Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is the next logical step subsequent to, and in post-sequence, following upon words which have significance and import.  Ignoring words is one thing; denying truth is quite another.  For, in the end, how we measure sincerity is quite easy; we take the sum of the words spoken, divide it by the number of actions taken, and multiply that by the dividends previously accounted for in prior instances of similar motives stated.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire