Legal Representation for OPM Disability Claims: The stand-around guy

It is pointed out in contrast to the other finger pointed towards another — not the “stand up” guy (or girl), but the “stand-around” guy (or girl).   The former refers to a person who can be trusted at all times, is straightforward when asked about his or her opinions on a matter, and is generally known as an individual of “good character”.  By contrast, the latter describes a person who is unsure of himself; who loiters because he cannot decide what his purpose is for being anywhere; and is generally picked last, or next to last, when teams are chosen for a pick-up game of basketball or touch football.

It refers to a person who is the “extra” and the odd-man out where, on dinner dates of foursomes or six-somes or whatever-somes, arrives alone and makes it into an awkward three-some, five-some or other-some with an odd number.  She is the little sister tag-along, the younger brother pop-up character and the whac-a-mole that keeps reappearing no matter how many hints are given that his or her company is no longer needed, is undesired or otherwise disinvited; but to be direct and pointed to the stand-around guy would be cruelty in its worst form, as he or she doesn’t quite understand or would rather be subjected to the indignities of being the butt of all jokes rather than to be sent off into the lonely despair of self-confinement and isolation lost upon an island of one’s own thoughts.

He is the person who arrives and never knows where to stand; the last one to be seated, and only if their is an available chair vacated; and yet, the last one to leave despite the desertion of a party where he was unnoticed, never talked to nor engaged and included in conversations where circles and semi-circles of people gathered but no one noticed.

The stand-around guy is the “extra” on a movie-set hoping to get noticed, yet too fearful of such notoriety; and as the activity of the main set continues to focus upon the stars and central figures upon the stage which we call “life”, he or she shuffles about for years and extending into decades, unknowingly contributing to the drama of civilization’s inertness where kindness is rarely shown, humanity is concealed from history, and the cruelty to life’s misery keeps bubbling to the surface like a volcanic eruption percolating unnoticed beneath the seething surface of hidden appearances.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where 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, does it often seem like the rest of the Federal Agency or the Postal Service is beginning to treat you like the “stand-around guy”?

Is it recognized and subtly acknowledged that you are no longer part of that “mission”, and because of your extensive leave-usage or LWOP excessiveness, or merely because you asserted your rights under FMLA, that now relegated into that status of persona non grata, the leper who was mistakenly given a pass out of the leper colony, or like the individual who says things embarrassingly in crowds of socialites who snub their noses at those who feign to be a part of the pseudo-aristocracy?

If you are beginning to be treated like that stand-around guy, it is likely time to begin to prepare, formulate and file 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 — lest the stand-around guy becomes the invisible man whose memory is quickly extinguished because of a removal action that came suddenly and unexpectedly from the upper echelons of powers-that-be, who decided to rid the Agency or the Postal Service of that stand-around guy whose presence was no longer needed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Attorney Representation for OPM Disability Retirement: Thinking

What constitutes it?  What is the evidence that it was engaged in?  When a person is charged with “premeditation” in the perpetration of a crime, and therefore ascription of full responsibility is used to convict and assign a greater length of incarceration, what methodological intricacies are involved?

Take the following hypothetical:  A man walks into a candy store and grabs a Snicker’s Bar, and runs out of the store without paying for it.  He is nabbed.  At the trial of the matter, the prosecutor gives the following summation to the judge:  “Your honor, this man clearly thought about it.  He entered the store, looked about, and deliberately took the Snicker’s Bar and ran out without paying, knowing that he did not pay it — otherwise, why would be have run?  Indeed, when the police caught him, he yelled, “I was hungry!”  That statement alone shows that the man knew he had not paid for it, for it was an admission of a motive, and thus, it is a clear indication that he thought about stealing it, walked into the store and with criminal intent stole the candy bar.  Only the death penalty would be appropriate for one with such premeditative intent, as he is a danger to society!”

Now, contrast this with the following:  The Candy Store’s automatic door opens, and an animal — a neighborhood dog — saunters in, sniffs about, and no one really notices.  The dog grabs a Snicker’s Bar, gobbles it.  Passersby watch.  The store’s owner notices, laughs, shoos the dog out the door.  Why do we not think that the dog “thought” about it?  Why is “thinking” ascribed to the human being, but not to the animal?  What is it about the actions of the two species that differentiates them?  Does the mere fact that we able able to speak, formulate words and convey thoughts, whether pre-or-post action confirm that any extent of reflective processes occurred?  Is the process of “thinking” always productive — i.e., leads to actions that are fruitful, or is much of it simply an insular activity that results in no great consequence?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are “thinking” about filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the key to “thinking” about it is to take the next step and act upon the thought.  People often think that thinking is a productive activity, so long as it remains active and continuous.  But thought can also negate and prevent, and too much thinking, or not enough, can often become an obstacle to the necessary next step.

In order to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the key to productive thinking is not merely to engage in it as an insular, solitary activity, but to have the consultation and advice of an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement, lest merely thinking about it leads to an unthoughtful act that leads one to believe that the very thinking itself was thoughtless.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer: Life’s Dispensation

It is often a word which is accompanied with the adjective, “special“, as in “special dispensation”; but a close review of such a phrase would reveal the redundancy of placing the two words together.  For, to have a dispensation is to be offered a unique situation where one is already exempted from the usual and customary rules applicable; and to insert the adjective, “special’, adds little to the exclusionary nature of the occasion.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, and where the medical condition is beginning to impact one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties occupied in the Federal sector and U.S. Postal Service, it is the disability and medical condition itself which gives rise to the dispensation requested, demanded or otherwise warranted.

That is precisely why resentment, hostility and exclusion occurs as a reactionary response by the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service: because special treatment outside of the normal rules of employment tend to engender such negative responses.

Filing for FMLA; requesting an accommodation in order to continue working; becoming entangled in EEO Complaints, grievances and the like — they all set you apart, and require actions outside of the normative parameters of daily relationships within the employment sector.  And that ultimate reaction by the agency, of “sticking it to the guy” even when it involves a medical condition impacting one’s employment and livelihood — one wonders, how can others be so cruel?  It is justified precisely through the psychology of the “herd mentality“, reduced to its most natural form in a single question:  “Who does that guy think he is?”

For Federal and Postal employees, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it often becomes necessary to follow up with the ultimate dispensation of that which one’s employment offers — that of filing for Federal Disability Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

It is not always the case that an employment package offers an annuity which (A) provides for continuation of insurance benefits and (B) allows one to work in a different vocation while receiving the annuity; but Federal Disability Retirement allows for both, so when the situation arises and there is a dispensation which reveals a solution to a problem, it is indeed a special circumstance which should be recognized as such, while ignoring the redundancy of life’s tautology.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire