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.

 

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Choices

The anomaly: If we don’t know of them, we have none.  In the objective universe of a perfect world, we would know of each and every one, and moreover, the consequences of each were we to choose them.  As defined, wisdom is the capacity to take current experiences and project them for future application; but if a person is without knowledge of the availability of choices to be made, where can wisdom be applied?

One’s choices are limited by the lack of knowledge one possesses, or has access to.  That is why “insider trading” provides an unfair advantage of choices — of trading certain stocks and gaining wealth, precisely because one has obtained knowledge which others do not have access to, which allows for accumulation of greater wealth based upon the information obtained.

Once a person has access to relevant knowledge, then the avenue of choices opens up for that individual, and then the choices to be made determine whether or not such knowledge is put to good use.  “Good use”, of course, is the key in determining whether or not a wise choice has been made; for, even with relevant knowledge, a person is still able to act unwisely by making a bad choice.

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 job, the choice to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, should be based upon relevant knowledge — of the laws, regulations and statutes pertaining to Federal Disability Retirement Law.

That being said, the choice of “going it alone” or of consulting and retaining a Federal Disability Attorney is entirely up to each individual.  However, the choice of wisdom should always listen to the small voice which begins with the path of wisdom: A person who represents himself has a fool for a client.

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.

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The Absent Life

Perhaps it describes one of your parents; or, of your own; or of a friend’s incessant complaints.  The absent life can be felt within, or described by those without.  Travel; the need to provide; of an emotional toil which robs one of human feeling and suffering; of traumatic experiences which have dulled the senses and made you feel as if you are disconnected from the rest of the world; these, and more, constitute and represent the absent life.

Often, medical conditions can overwhelm and dominate, and you may feel that you are not “really there” — even of Long COVID symptoms where you cannot get yourself back “into” the mental and physical activities which you were once a part of.  Being disconnected is often part and parcel of certain types of medical conditions, and you may no longer have the capacity to maintain the requisite and sustained focus and concentration in order to do your technically demanding administrative duties.

The Absent life is often an indication of a more serious issue, and you may want to contact an attorney if you are a Federal or Postal employee, to consider filing for FERS Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Your absences may be a factor, but physical absences are not the only kind of absences; you can be there, and not be there at the same time, and it is the absent life where an individual is not longer able to perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, which may potentially qualify one for Federal Disability Retirement benefits 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.

 

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.

 

FERS Disability Retirement: When Snow Becomes a Nuisance

Remember when it was all just fun and laughter?  When waking up and looking out at the furious flakes wind-blown and swirling about, the blanket of pure whiteness just waiting to be gathered, felt, rolled into balls and danced upon with cackles of laughter and uproariously unfettered shivers of joy?

There was a time in all of our childhoods when snow was anticipated, enjoyed, savored and embraced — unless, of course, you grew up in Hawaii or some other tropical paradise where only the imagination, books or some other medium of distantly-experienced phenomena could be viewed.

Then, one day, it became a nuisance.  We know not when, and how, or even the precise moment when the childish delight became a chore; when the fun and chatter became merely a din of distraction; or why the joy of a snowy day became a dreaded day of darkness.  Innocence cannot last forever, and mortality and vulnerability must rear their ugly heads at some point in everyone’s lives.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the medical condition and its impact upon one’s life is akin to the day when snow became a nuisance: Health is often taken for granted, but when it is lost, then everything else becomes a dreaded chore and a daily struggle.

Consult with a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and consider preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Employee Disability Retirement application under FERS, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, so that the things which you have lost — like your health and sense of optimism for the future — can be regained, and perhaps even that the snow can be somewhat more than a mere nuisance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

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

 

Lawyer Representation for OPM Disability Retirement: The time watcher

How many times (stated in the numerical sense) do we watch the time (in the alternative sense)?  Do we waste time by keeping an eye on time, or is it prudent because it forces us to maintain a “schedule” or mandate a strict adherence to a regimen of activities to be performed, chores to have accomplished and work to be completed?  Does watching time save time or merely waste it?

Say a person keeps looking at his watch (or is this in and of itself an anachronism, now, as everyone merely lights up the smart phone which has made wrist watches outmoded?), and you notice that he does so systematically — say, every 5 – 10 minutes.  Then, at precisely 5 o’clock, he gets up from his desk, puts on his coat and leaves the office.  You realize that for the past hour, all that this person had been doing was to check the time in anticipation of leaving at a certain time.  Whether any actual work was completed; whether the watching of time contributed to any productivity, etc., is of relevance, are they not?

For, the time watcher watches the time pass, and it matters as to the reason underlying the very watching of time.  It one watches the time in order to meet a deadline, say, or pace one’s self in a race, etc., then does it make it more productive than if one simply waits for the last hour to pass in order to go on to something else?

Time watching is certainly something which we all do, but as to its usefulness will often depend upon the reason why it is engaged — as in, for “negative” purposes, like “passing the time” in order for a specific moment to arrive, or for “positive” reasons, as in monitoring the passing of time while engaging in a certain type of activity, etc.  The harmless activity of time watching becomes magnified in exaggerated form when the very “watching” itself becomes the central activity — sort of like the notion of “we live with the expectation of dying”.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who realize that one’s times are “numbered” (both in the numerical sense as well as in a metaphorical usage) because of one’s medical condition that prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it may be time to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal Service worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the watchful time watcher who watches as others whittle away the time wondering whether the next harassing initiation of an administrative sanction will be imposed by the agency, or of the watchful waiting to see if you fail to meet the standards of an imposed PIP — watching the time pass to see if you can make it to retirement age or time-in-service computation is no way to live.

If a medical condition is impacting your ability to perform the essential elements of your job, it is time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  It is time — or past the time — to merely think about it; rather, it is now time to act, and not remain as a passive time watcher, but to take the reigns of time and become the time watcher with a purpose.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Avoiding the repetitive in a narrative

Why do we believe that adding the repetition of words, especially adverbs, will create a compelling narrative?  If you ascribe an adjective to an object, then ad an adverb – say, “very” – does repeating and inserting another magnify the significance of the narrative itself, or detract by placing a grammatical marker by bringing attention that the very necessity of the addition undermines the efficacy of the noun to which all of the additions point to, in the first place?  May not the noun itself stand on its own two feet, so to speak; or, at least with the supportive crutches of an adjective?

If a person posits that things are “very bad”, does the person responding who adds, “No, things are very, very bad” contribute to the discourse in that singular addition?  And what of the third in the discussion, who says, “Yes, I must agree, things are very, very, very bad”?  And what if a fourth person – unassuming and generally unemotional, who puts a sense of finality to the entire conversation by declaring:  “No, you are all right.  Things are bad.”  Did the last statement without the adverb and the repetition of additional tautological ringers, say anything less in the utterance, and conversely, did the third contributor add anything more to the discourse?

Often enough in life, that which we believe we are enhancing, we are merely detracting from in the very repetition of discourse.  It is like a signal or a marker; the red flag that arises suspicion is sometimes waved through the unintentional attempt to bring about attention through repetitive enhancement, and it is often the noun with the singular adjective that evinces the quietude of force in grammatical parlay.  Pain, anguish and medical conditions often seek to descriptively reveal through unnecessary repetition.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who is working on preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted through one’s own agency or the H.R. Shared Services Center (for Postal employees) in Greensboro, N.C. (if the Federal or Postal employee is still with the Federal Agency, or not yet separated for more than 31 days), preparing adequate and sufficient responses on SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, must be embraced with care, fortitude, forthrightness and deliberation of factual, medical, legal and personal weaving of a compelling narrative.

Inclusion of too many adverbs may be a distraction; meanderings of thought and unnecessary information will undermine the entirety of the construct; and while the linguistic tool of repetition can be effective and compelling, too much of a “good thing” may undermine the singularity of a narrative’s natural soul.

In the end, the Statement of Disability prepared by a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement applicant should be a compelling narrative delineating a discourse of bridging the nexus between medical condition and one’s positional duties.  It should be descriptive.  It should be very descriptive.  It should be very, very descriptive.  It should also include the descriptive, the legal and the personal, just not very, very, very so.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Service: The helpful other perspective

Before going “whole-hog” with anything in life, the greater wisdom often confirms that we should try and obtain a differing perspective on the matter, if only to affirm the correctness of our own, or to consider the fissures and weaknesses we are blind to.  Wise people seek wisdom; fools travel down roads not merely untested, but even unprepared.  Such a tautology is a mere self-evident fact of life, but we nevertheless follow blindly where the blind leads.

If an individual discounts the criticisms of everyone else, then the wisdom one holds is merely the price of one’s own mistakes, and so long as others are not required to pay for them, the pathway to disaster can be easily paved without involving the toil and anguish of others.

One may query:  assuming it is wise to seek the input of another, how does one nevertheless know that such a differing viewpoint is “helpful” at all?  What if that other perspective is even worse of a disaster than my own?  Such a question, of course, is likely asked in a vacuum; for, there are varying indicators that one may discern in seeking advice from others –  reputation; demeanor; knowledge previously revealed; capacity to listen; established specialty in a particular field, etc.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset –  the need to seek the helpful “other” perspective is often a necessary prerequisite.

Why?

Because, when a medical condition is impacting one’s health – whether singularly physical, or mental or a combination of both – the debilitated state that one experiences often provides a skewered perspective, and that is why garnering and employing the advice of an attorney who is experienced in Federal Disability Retirement Law is often a necessary component of the process.

Yes, there may well be those rare “slam-dunk” cases, whether gathering and submitting the medical records alone will obtain an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  But, then, everyone who files a Federal Disability Retirement application believes his or her submission to be just that –  undeniable, unequivocally established, and unassailably confirmed.

Why is that?

Because the person who experiences the medical condition is the same person who is preparing the Federal Disability Retirement application – and he or she who feels the pain, presupposes that everyone else must also be able to comprehend such a state of decline.  Unfortunately, this is not the case – at least, not from the perspective of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which is also another one of those “other” perspectives that must be contended with.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire