Federal Disability Retirement: Logical Consistency

For even the general population, it used to be that “logical consistency” mattered.  To be “inconsistent” showed a semblance of unreliability, and even of suspicion of truthfulness.  The difference between mere “consistency” as opposed to “logical consistency” is one that demarcates between living a life based upon principles and holding contrary opinions simultaneously.

Thus, a person may live inconsistently — a pastor who preaches fidelity to marriage but is himself a philanderer — but live with great logical consistency in expounding upon his theological belief-system.

In argumentation, the “weak link” is both the logic of the statements posed as well as the consistency of opinions held.  In a Federal Disability Retirement case, “logical consistency” is based upon the appropriateness of the statements made, the medical conditions asserted and the laws which apply in order to meet the legal criteria to become eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Mere “consistency” is not enough — i.e., to have health condition, to be unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, to be in chronic pain, etc. “Consistency” may get you a step closer to an approval from OPM, but it is “Logical Consistency” — the arguments made, the evidence produced and submitted and the requirements met in a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement case — which will cross over into an approval for Federal Disability Retirement.

Consult with a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest consistency alone fails to get you far enough and logical consistency awakens the slumber that results in an approval from OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Federal Lawyer exclusively representing Federal & Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

OPM Medical Retirement: Empathy: What it Says About Us

In a recent Wall Street Journal Article, there was a story about 3 people who died — of professional individuals who had purchased cocaine, but where the “product” was tainted with fentanyl and perhaps some other deadly additives.

Why was it so difficult to feel a sense of empathy for these people?  The fact that they all seemed “privileged” — of having good jobs, being young and having all of the alleged “appearance” of having social, professional and financial advantages — seems to come into play.  The judgment we make is: It was their “choice” to buy the drugs, to take them, to understand the chance they were taking, and so….

Yet, how are they any different, substantively, from the child who grows up in the “projects” and is daily surrounded by drug dealers, criminals and bad parenting?  What is the substantive difference between the two?  Why do we have empathy for the child who grows up with disadvantages and succumbs to them, but not for the ones who seemingly have all of the advantages in life, and yet, squanders them and descends to the level of those who have always been without?

Empathy is a funny animal; and moreover, it probably says something about us when we show it for some, feel it for others, and yet for those “others” — none at all.  Which is a lesson for Federal and Postal employees who suffer from an injury or disease, and who have shown a sense of loyalty to their Federal Agency or Postal Unit for many years, and expect to find some sympathy when they file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under the FERS system.

Perhaps you believe that you will receive some modicum of empathy from your Agency or Postal Service.  Don’t.  And when you do not, don’t begin ruminating about it; for, in the end, it says something about your Agency, and not about yourself.

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 Disability Retirement: Ostensibly

It is a funny word, in many respects; for, it presumes and assumes what may not actually be the case.  The word, “Ostensibly”, is used to describe that which is apparently so, or purportedly assumed, but may not actually be so.

Thus, one might say of an individual who is wearing clothes appearing to suggest that he or she works in a blue-collar job, and perhaps wears a tool-belt which suggests and confirms him/her to be such, that “he is ostensibly a carpenter”.  How does the adverb qualify the noun?   Because we don’t actually know, do we?

By his appearance and the fact that the individual carries around a tool belt which contains, perhaps, a saw, a hammer, a nail gun and other pertinent and revealing instruments indicating what a carpenter would require, we make an assumption that he is “ostensibly” a carpenter.

Now, it would be strange if you were to ask the individual what his profession was, and he confirmed that yes, he was a carpenter, then to state to a friend later on that “Joe is ostensibly a carpenter”, because if you have confirmed that the person “Joe” in reality is a carpenter and there is no longer an assumption, then to apply the word “ostensibly” would be rather odd — unless, of course, you thought that he was lying and that he only wore the tool belt to fool you, or was a half-wit who was engaging in “make believe” that he was a carpenter, etc.

In other contexts, the term “ostensibly” often applies, as well — as when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management denies a Federal Disability Retirement case and makes a multitude of arguments which, in the end, implies that you are merely “ostensibly” disabled (although they will never use the word itself).

For, what OPM is saying in a Federal Disability Retirement case under FERS in denying the Federal employee’s application for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement benefits, is that while you may allege to be disabled or unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of your job, you are actually not disabled.

If that happens, you will need to contact a disability attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law; for, you will need more than an attorney who “ostensibly” does Federal Disability Retirement Law — rather, one who is, in reality and in fact, an attorney who specializes in it.

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.

 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Disability Retirement: Life’s Aporia

The classic example of “aporia” is the following: A Greek individual declares to the world, “All Greeks are liars”.  Is what he said a lie?  Or, is he excluded from the statement?  If all Greeks are liars, and the declaring individual is a Greek and is therefore lying, does that mean that all Greeks tell the truth?  Or is that a lie, as well?

Thus, the term indicates an internal self-contradiction, where the statement or declarative itself is inconsistent with itself.

It is like the Federal or Postal employee who can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job — there is an inconsistency between what the individual does, and his or her medical condition.  Thus, Federal Disability Retirement benefits were put in place in order to correct one of life’s Aporias — where an internal inconsistency and incompatibility exists.

Contact an OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer who specializes in OPM Medical Retirement Law, and begin the process of reversing life’s aporia by preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Attorney Representation for OPM Disability Claims: Blinders

We all have them; whether on windows, around our eyes or upon our minds, they are meant to deliberately obscure and obfuscate.  Can others put them up without our noticing them?  It is theoretically possible, one supposes; but more often, blinders are placed with the consent of the blinded, either by the person wanting them or in conspiracy and collaboration with another.

Originally, they were for horses, attached to the bridle so that the animal would be prevented from being able to see to the side or behind.  This allowed for riding a horse, say, in a congested area in order to limit the spooking of the animal, or merely to maintain a forward-directional focus and helping the animal to cope with the dizzying activities surrounding.  Once the prominence of the horse lessened and depreciated in daily use and value, the metaphors that surrounded the obsolescence of that which was once of utilitarian dominance often became transferred to other linguistic arenas; and so we refer to “blinders” on people or circumstances.

We all walk around with blinders to some extent, of course, and Federal and Postal employees 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, often by necessity must walk around with blinders securely placed.  Blinders to the future; blinders as to the growing debilitating effects of the medical condition upon one’s ability and capacity to continue in one’s career; blinders as to what the Federal agency or the Postal Service are doing and initiating — of memorandums and paper trails beginning to put the pressure upon the Federal or Postal employee; and many other blinders besides.

In the end, the inevitability of preparing an effective Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, may force one to take the blinders off.  Always remember, however, the importance of those blinders that cannot be put upon another — like, once OPM sees something in a Federal Disability Retirement application and denies a case because of that certain “something” that should have been caught before submitting the Federal Disability Retirement application, you cannot afterwards put blinders on OPM.

To make sure that such an unfortunate circumstance does not occur, you may want to consult with an experienced attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law, so that you are not left with the blinders that need to be placed, as opposed to those that need to be removed.

Sincerely,

Robert R.McGill, Esquire
Federal & Postal Disability Lawyer

 

Federal Disability Retirement under FERS/CSRS: Of bad people

Is there any good in people, anymore?  Is it even relevant to distinguish between “good” and “bad”?  Yes, yes – I know; it is a devious thing to entitle a piece with one concept, then begin the discussion by embracing its antonym – a device often used by newspapers, periodicals, and short story writers of the dubious set and genre of unfashionable alternatives.  But more to the point:  in a universe and culture where moral judgments are no longer acceptable, and where equivalence of distinctions have been concretized except by religious zealots and society’s cultish outcasts, can the contradistinctions between the two have any significance or relevance for conceptual paradigms incommensurate with prior such models (to borrow a well-worn phrase by Thomas Kuhn) in order to retain any meaningful posit?

There is an inherent acknowledgment that if we ascribe a negative principle or connotation to a word, that two things must necessarily denote a contingent precedent:  First, that it is distinguishable from everything else in the universe (otherwise, if it cannot be, then everything becomes nothing, and therefore loses its efficacy of meaning); and Second, that its opposite must embrace an aura of equally virulent affirmation, lest the antonym be nothing more than a synonym of choice.

But if “goodness” is a mere societal convention constructed in the artifice of false religious histories, where idols, gods and angels once occupied now have formed a continent of mythologies no longer believed in but for those quaint societies in outlands visited by tourists who purchase trinkets for show and Instagram opportunities, then being “bad” cannot have any ascription of meaningful prose, anymore.

“Goodness” meant something, at one point; there were common threads throughout, and societal values could agree implicitly, without vocalized necessitation of explanatory expositions, and the questioning itself would bring quizzical looks of suspicion and concern, not only for the finite soul for mortality’s sake, but because to query of such self-evident devices was to presume a sort of insanity manifested against the tides of normalcy.

In modernity, of course, the antithesis is accepted:  to make a moral judgment is to be intolerant, and that is the greatest crime of all.  Yet, that in and of itself is an anomaly, because as sins are presumed to be no longer fashionable because of the Biblical context surrounding, so “good” and “evil” (or “badness”) are no longer acceptable terms.  We cannot judge, because judging requires a prerequisite of an intolerant nature, and tolerance is the reflective definition of goodness in modernity.  So, we must suffer evil in silence, and remain neutral as to the angels who visit us when misfortune arrives.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must suffer through the employment arena knowing the hogwash of neutrality where we never judge and never appear intolerant, we witness the height of hypocrisy in the behavior of the “good” people against those with medical conditions and disabilities.

And so we have to prepare 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, because to remain at the Federal Agency or U.S. Postal Service would, again, turn the conceptual artifices upside down, where the “good” have been deemed no longer so, and the “bad” are those who seek to be accommodated, or stick around too long and irritate the “good” people of the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service, which is a “bad” thing that “good” people should not be allowed to do, because it is a good bad thing in a bad good world.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The Hangman’s Knot

The perfect knot is the most effective, and development of its features occurred over time through a science of art and an artistic employment of science.  The placement of the knot behind which ear; the number of coils before they became an impediment; and the avoidance, at all costs, of trespassing upon superstitious beliefs and potentially supernatural reverberations — these were all taken into account in perfecting the science of the art.

Its corollary, the art of the science, disregarded the efficacy of the knot; it was only the former which concerned itself with an objective evaluation of the results after each occurrence.  Like parachuters who pack and fold their own devices with a systematic routine of sprinkled superstitions, the hangman would often approach his craft with a religiosity and fervency of monotony such that any detour from the iconoclasm of repetition could delay or abandon the anointed time of impending doom.

In modernity, of course, any discussion concerning the hangman’s noose turned into a historicity of adages and proverbial wisdom; we construct our own knots, like the beds we make in which we must sleep, and the messes we create which we direct our children to clean up.

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 the Federal or Postal positional duties, the issue of when to file, how to file, the whys and whereabouts must always be taken into account; and like the hangman’s noose which is coiled slowly and deliberately, the Federal or Postal worker who prepares for the inevitably end must take care in the preparation and application for submission and filing.

It is, in the end, only the superficial features of the world which change; the essence of everything substantive remains constant, and that is precisely the point of Plato, Aristotle and the entire linear heritage of Western Philosophy — that the underlying meaningfulness of the world around us is that which is captured in truth.  And, like the hangman’s knot, what we do in preparing for the event of a lifetime is just as important as the incident itself, and that is why preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is essential to securing a future of stability and security, where the process is just as crucial as the substance underlying.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The U.S. Department of Health & Human Sacrifice

Does modernity reflect progress?  And, more to the point, by whose definition do we apply the standard of “progress”?  Does mere movement or change constitute advancement, or do we fool ourselves by the proverbial content of shuffling the chairs on the deck of a sinking ship?  Each generation believes fervently that the previous one represents an archaic mode of static thought and stale fashions, and that youth itself somehow supersedes the necessity for any generational transfer of wisdom or insight.

In former times, certain societies would offer the best and the beautiful as human sacrifice to the gods of fate, in order to please, appease and gain favor.  In current times, we do the same, but cheat the gods by offering less than the healthy ones, and instead give to the winds of fate the decrepit, deteriorating and destroyed individuals who no longer contribute fully to society, thinking that by shedding ourselves of the rabble and remains of shorn vestiture, the favor of formidable fate will be attained for future payment in place of delayed gratification.  Why is it that health and human sacrifice have become terms of mutual exclusivity?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, the Department of Health and Human Sacrifice has become the largest entity of bureaucratic morass, employing more people than all other agencies combined.  It is the place where “health” is disregarded, and while lip service is paid to “accommodations” and those with disabilities, the reality of it is that such Federal and Postal workers are thrown down over the cliff as fodder for human sacrifice.

Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition no longer allows for fully embracing all of the essential elements of the positional duties required by the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, know well that the Department of Health and Human Sacrifice exists for them.  Whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the relegation to this last bastion for infidels is the secret of modernity, kept in whispers where corridors of power and privacy prevail before being pushed down the chute of despair.

The only escape from such fated sacrifice is neither a replacement lamb nor a plan of refuge, but to prepare, formulate and file for an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  For, the Department of Health & Human Sacrifice was created under the guise of protecting the general public, when in fact its very existence is to advance the horrors as told by a generation of Orwellian drones; but, then, that is from a previous generation no longer relevant to current residents of modernity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire