Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Persuasion

Persuasion is a funny animal; when it is effective, success is determined by the reversal of an opponent’s viewpoint, but if it is ineffective, mere silence ensues, and unless prompted by subsequent queries, one never knows how close one came to persuading another and what further evidence or argumentation may have pushed the other side over the edge.

Then, of course, there is always the question of whether the opposing party is open to persuasion or not, and what are the conditions within which it may occur.  The danger lies especially when an organization or bureaucracy has become so powerful or autocratic that it need not ever be persuaded because there are no consequences to being left unpersuaded.

The presence of outside safeguards is often necessary for persuasion to have its salutary effect, as a more obscure sense of “fair play” is often not enough to make a difference.  All of this, of course, doesn’t even touch upon the substantive content of what constitutes a persuasive argument, as context is often just as important as content (anyone who has been married will immediately understand the truth of this statement).

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have submitted a FERS Medical Retirement claim with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (also known for its acronym “OPM”) and have received an initial denial and must now respond to the denial at the Reconsideration Stage of the Process, “persuasiveness” becomes the battle cry in preparing the proper response.

OPM has all the time in the world in preparing its denial and needs little basis in its persuasive content.  They merely need to have some minimal basis of reasons to issue a denial.  On the other hand, the denied Federal or Postal applicant has (A) a very short timeframe in responding and (B) must advance a heavy burden of proof in order to overcome the denial, despite the often scatter-brained content of an OPM Denial.

Furthermore, in preparing a reconsideration Response, one should always keep in mind that the targeted audience is not just OPM, but the next stage in the event that OPM remains unpersuaded — that of the Admin Judge at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).  That is why any response to an OPM Initial Denial should include a recitation of the relevant case laws discussing why your particular case meets the legal criteria for an approval.

As with spousal arguments and discussions around the Holiday dinner table, context matters as much as context when trying to persuade the other side.  And also in preparing a persuasive response, you may want to consider consulting with a Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer specializing exclusively in FERS Medical Retirement Law.

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: This Post-Factual World

If facts don’t matter, then how is it that every side of every issue declares it to be the case that the “facts favor my side”?  The moment we allowed for the validity of the argument — that there are “alternative sets of facts” — the entire structure of rational discourse crumbled.

However you want to call the foundational basis of the Western Philosophical traditions — of the Socratic Method; Rational Discourse; The Adversarial System: The Dialectical Method of Argumentation, etc. — it was always based upon a number of propositional assumptions, including:  A.  There is ultimately only one “Truth” with a capital T;  B. that, even if there might be some subsets of smaller “truths”, they all become subservient to the greater recognition of “The Truth”, and  C. Once all contestants recognize this, no matter how arrogantly we want to resist, we must concede the existence of the greater Truth over the lesser ones.

Schopenhauer was reported to have stated that there are no real lies, but rather, only “crippled truths”, but one wonders.  Russell, of course, countered with his mischievous statement, and with one stroke dismantled the age-old Correspondence theory of Truth with that nonsensical proposition:  “The present King of France is bald”.  As there is no kind of France, he cannot be bald, and yet we all understand the rationality of such a statement, don’t we?

Yet, never let this Post-Factual World fool you into believing that in all areas of life, in every arena of discourse, in fullness of words — that facts simply “don’t matter”.

For example, for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a chronic medical condition such that the medical condition impacts the Federal or Postal employee’s daily attempt to make a living — i.e., continue to work in his or her career of choice with the Federal or Postal system — don’t ever think that “facts don’t matter”, because they matter very, very much.

Contact a lawyer who specializes in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, and don’t let this Post-Factual World deter you from the importance of arguing your unique set of facts to OPM.

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: Those Dog Days of Summer

Extremes desire the opposite extremes; and so these winter days of short sunlight, cold and unending spells where the chill cannot be gotten rid of no matter how high you turn up the thermostat — they wish for the other extreme, those dog days of summer.

July to August is the traditional period referred to as the Dog Days of Summer, of a starry constellation where hot temperatures force dogs and other animals to simply lay down and remain motionless in order to keep cool.  It forces the other extremes: Motion versus immobility; abundance verses lack; health versus?

Life is too often a contrast in extremes; one day, you are healthy and active; the next, debilitated and unable to move.  Or, is that just the fear?

The reality is more often a slow and progressive deterioration; the extreme is that, despite our failing health, we continue to push on in order to extend our careers.  The “extreme” is often our response to our circumstances, which then further exacerbates the problem.  Yes, we now may wish for the dog days of summer, but what would be best is the interlude of a Spring moderation.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows for continuation in one’s job or career, don’t wait for the next extreme — those Dog Days of Summer — but, rather, contact a FERS lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement benefits and see whether the Spring of a next phase might not be the better season of action and satisfaction.

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 & Postal Employee Disability Retirement: The Non-Existent Door

It is the door which should exist, but doesn’t.

The Non-Existent door includes: The one with the sign on it which says, “Office of Reputation Restoration Once the Truth Comes Out” — you know, the place where your reputation is restored after it turns out that things people said about you weren’t true, after all.  Or, how about: “Office of Refunds — A Dollar for Each Day Your Kids were Ungrateful”.  This is the office where you suddenly become extraordinarily wealthy for all of the effort you put into raising your kids, but where you never received any thanks.  Or, the door with the sign which reads: “Office of Body Parts and Replacements” — where you can trade in a bad back or a bum knee for a brand new one.

Well, such an office door does “somewhat” exist, in that a doctor can do their best to try and repair certain medical conditions.  Unfortunately, the science of medicine has not yet been perfected, and until it has, we have to continue to live lives which must take into account various medical conditions which are not ultimately curable, and have become chronic and restrictive.

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, filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is often the only available response to the Non-Existent Door — the one which says, “Office Where You can Keep your Job despite your Medical Conditions”.

Contact a retirement attorney who specializes in Federal Employee Disability Retirement Law, and enter the door not of Non-Existence, but of an existence entitled, “Federal Disability Retirement annuitant”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

OPM Medical Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Avoidance

It is a common tool of the psyche and ego; by engaging in it, one skirts around an issue, and like its cousin, procrastination, it allows for a period of calm respite.  Avoidance is a form of procrastination; both allow for the subject of their common focus to fester, to grow, to loom large in the background without attending to its causes.

Say you are standing in your bedroom; it is raining; there is a patch of discoloration in the ceiling.  You wonder if the roof is leaking.  You pass it off as bad eyesight, or some other reason, and turn away, avoiding the problem by simply ignoring it.  The next time it rains, you sneak a peek and, sure enough, the discoloration has expanded, but you say to yourself, “Well, there is no actual drip from the ceiling, so perhaps it is not a leak, after all, but merely some accumulating condensation”.

Now, whatever “some accumulating condensation” may mean, it still points to a problem that should be attended to, but instead, the obscure-sounding phrase seems to explain an otherwise clearly-growing problem, and thus the next step in the avoidance-process has begun: Explaining it away, as opposed to tackling the core of the problem itself.

Avoidance is a natural defense mechanism inherent in us all; it allows us to extend our need to limit confronting something which we do not desire to engage.

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 one’s Federal or Postal position, avoidance of facing either the medical problem itself, or its impact upon your capacity and ability to perform your job, is often a problem which allows the issue to loom larger than necessary.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law, and allow for the avoidance to be confronted by an experienced attorney, thus further avoiding direct engagement with the issues, yet allowing for the attorney to address the core issue: Preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Retirement for Medical Incapacity: The boxes in Standard Forms

For some forms, it is a convenience to have a restrictive, limited “box” in which to put the “x” into, or maybe the needed “Not Applicable”; others, however, try and contain a limited narrative and force succinctness into the standardization of answers.  That is all well and good, and perhaps from a bureaucratic standpoint and perspective, the conformity of forms and the mandatory “answers within a box” makes for streamlining of paperwork.

The reality, however, is that some questions cannot be answered — and more importantly, should not — within the proposed space allocated, and so you have two (2) choices: decrease the font size in order to fit a greater substance of the narrative within the provided box, or attach a continuation sheet despite no indication in the standard forms for allowance of such cheekiness of presumptuous creativity.

How does one identify which Standard Form should be prepared and completed within the confines of standardization, and which ones should not?   First, a conceptual identification should be applied: Which ones are merely “informational” that request only singular answers, and which forms make queries that compel for narrative answers?  Once that initial, identifying bifurcation is made, then the next step is to determine whether an adequate and sufficient response can be stated within the “box” provided within the font-size allowing for regular eyesight that does not require extraordinary magnification, or if a continuation sheet is necessary.

Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement application, certain Standard Forms are merely informational — for example, the SF 3107 series which asks for basic, factual information.  Then, of course, there is the SF 3112 series, and especially SF 31112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability.

For the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker under FERS, who is considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, the greater mistake has often been to quickly annotate within the boxes provided a swift “jotting down” of the medical conditions one “feels” — as if the body parts providing temporary sensations for a given day, or even the lack thereof, will sufficiently satisfy the eligibility requirements that must be met in order to become approved for a Federal Disability Retirement annuity.

Make no mistake about it: there can be dire legal consequences if SF 3112A is not completed properly and sufficiently.  And always remember the philosophical dictum: That which is necessary may not be necessarily sufficient, and that which is sufficient may not be sufficiently necessary.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Attorney Representation for OPM Disability Claims: Tone and tenor

In music as well as in grammar, the first word remains somewhat constant, in that it refers to the sound itself – how it sounds, the decibel level, the texture and coherence, etc.  Between the two, it is the tenor that alters, for in music, it refers to the male voice intermediate between the bass and the alto, while in grammar it is the content and substance of that which is said.

Thus, in either manner of usage, whether in music or in grammar, the combination of both is a bifurcated distinctiveness that goes to the duality of the following:  How it is being played or said, as opposed to what is being emitted or posited.  Both in verbal communication, as well as in written delineation and presentation, each are important.  In the former, one can often modulate the first upon the second, and even adapt the second in order to “soften” the first.

Thus, a person might say, “Go take a hike” in an angry, unforgiving manner, and the words spoken are consistent with the tone granted.  Or, one can say it in a joking, soft-spoken manner, and suddenly the tenor of the words take on an entirely new meaning – for, no longer do you actually mean the words themselves, as in “Please go away, I don’t like you and I don’t want to see you”; rather, stated in the second manner, it can simply be a cute retort, a friendly quip or a joking gesture.

In writing, however, one must be quite careful – for the tone of a sentence is encapsulated within the tenor of the written statement; the two, being entangled by the written mode of communicating, can easily be misinterpreted unless carefully crafted.  That is why texting, emailing and other written modes of delivery can be dangerous vehicles easily misunderstood and taken with offensive intent that otherwise was meant in a different manner.

The “tone” of a written sentence, paragraph or page must be intimately woven with the context of the “tenor” presented; and how the reader or recipient reads it, what internal “tone” is ascribed, can be misguiding.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who must prepare 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 tone and tenor of a Federal Disability Retirement packet is important to consider.

Will a somewhat “third-person, objective” persona be assumed?  Will the SF 3112A, the Applicant’s Statement of Disability, be presented in a cold, clinical manner, where the tone is set “as if” someone else is describing the personal issues of the medical conditions, as well as their effect upon the Federal or Postal employee’s capacity and ability to perform the essential elements of the Federal or Postal position, or will it be more likened to a weeping bundle of hysterical cries begging for approval, or even closer to an angry shout that deafens the ears of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s assigned “specialist”?

Tone and tenor need to be decided upon early on in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, and it may well be that consulting with an attorney who specializes in preparing such applications will ensure the proper modulation in both the tone and tenor of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The title itself

Sometimes, it is good to go “back to the basics”.  Throughout these blogs for these past and many years, the attempt has been to relate common everyday experiences and life’s challenges to the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker struggling daily to maintain one’s career and to extend a career in the face of a medical condition.  Yet, the primary focus has always been to try and remain informative; to give some sense of the process of filing a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Sometimes, however, the title itself is sufficient, and one does not need the additional analogy, metaphor or “connectedness” to try and understand the process, and instead, all that is required is the title itself.

OPM Disability Retirement is a “medical” retirement.  It is based upon a medical condition that prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job.  Yes, it can be a very, very complicating process, especially because there are potential pitfalls throughout the multiple administrative steps.  At each step of the procedural paths, there may be legal consequences that may not be correctible once the Federal Disability Retirement application has been submitted and a case number has been assigned at Boyers, Pennsylvania – i.e., a “CSA number” that begins with the number “8” and ends with a seemingly irrelevant “0” appended as the last of series of numbers.

Aside from the inherently complex questions posed on SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, the initial question that one must face and answer is (A) Whether, as a practical matter, Federal Disability Retirement is worth it, and (B) Whether there is a good chance to become eligible for it.

As to the first question, the factors that must be considered are: One’s age (for, at age 62, all disability annuities are recalculated based upon the total number of years of Federal Service, including the time that one is on Federal Disability Retirement, and as it now takes at least a year to get approved by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the question needs to be asked as to how old one is, how close one is to reaching regular retirement, and whether one can last until such age of retirement and the accrual of enough service computation years of Federal employment, etc.), how many years of Federal Service, and whether the Federal agency or the Postal Service is threatening to proceed with termination or separation.  And as to the second question, issues concerning the type of medical condition, the severity, the impact upon the Federal or Postal positional duties, the extent of support, how much reliance of such support is based upon a VA disability rating, and multiple other factors.

The “title itself” is often quite simple; it is the subtexts, the parenthetical unknowns and the hidden potholes along the road to filing a Federal Disability Retirement application (here we go again with the analogies and the metaphors) that makes for a complex and complicated journey.  But, then again, hasn’t that always been the case throughout life – facing the title itself that seems simple enough, but finding out that it is a bit more difficult than first thought?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Conspiracy of life

Tabloids lead us to suspect it; odd coincidences force us to confront it; and the amassed aggregate of life experiences allow us to consider seriously the implications of it.  Are there such deliberative interconnections that make seeming chance encounters more than the arbitrary clashes of random events, such that they are planned, coordinated and precipitated by human activity beyond mere statistical anomalies?

If the creation of the natural world can be acceptably explained by evolutionary forces without a grand designer of some relevant intelligence quotient, and if randomness can be explicated by instinctive forces based upon a genetic predisposition for survival, then certainly the conspiracy of life can be readily accepted.

Often, we dismiss and refute sequential events that “could only happen” with some modality of deliberative intent, with a dismissive declaration of, “Naw…it just couldn’t be…”   Yet, we believe in those inane, proverbial truisms, like – “When it rains, it pours”, as events seem to come in bunches, bad luck follows upon acts violating superstitious conduct defying the supernatural, and we still try and avoid making major life decisions when the stars become misaligned during a winter solstice.

And so we remain careful when coming upon the path of a black cat, or refrain from making major life decisions on those Fridays which fall upon an unlucky number; and, beyond, believe that a conspiracy of life may yet manage to subvert, pervert and preemptively undermine the dreams we dream, the fantasies we pursue and the follies we hope for.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who suffers 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 position, it is not a far stretch to conceive of, believe in and otherwise suspect a conspiracy of life – precisely because Federal fiefdoms and Postal power-centers are replete with bands of marauding rogues whose sole purpose in life is to harass, intimidate, make life miserable and force the issue of “who is boss”.

Little people with evil souls tend to congregate in places where the frustrations of a personal life spill over into the professional arena of employment contexts.  Always remember, however, the singular focus in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application:  To have it approved by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Thus, if you get “drawn in” to the tangents by invitation of the conspiracy of life, you may regret the wayward course and the detour compelled by losing your way, direction and compass-driven focus that should guide you to ignore those unverified and arbitrary chance events as depicted in superimposed photographs besides outlandish editorial exclamations seen and surreptitiously viewed while standing in line at the grocery store.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Trivial Pursuit

The game itself apparently reached its peak of popularity in the mid-80s.  What is so fascinating about playing the game, was that the very person who attained the highest success at it was often admired as “smart”, “intelligent” or otherwise brilliant in intellectual prowess; and yet, the name of the game itself should immediately undermine that stellar coronation of earned consolation, if by just the mere fact of admitting to possessing such tropes and tripe of information in globs of voluminous detail.

Is the thought-process as follows:  Those who have such an excess and overflow of knowledge must be smarter than the rest of us precisely because, to know such ancillary details, he or she must have a greater pool and wealth of wisdom such that the overflow is reflected in the triviality of the aggregate?  Or, is it that we presume knowledge – any knowledge – can be counted by quantity, and not by quality of technical output?  Why would the capacity and talent of being able to respond to irrelevancy constitute a basis for admiration?  And where does the line begin and end – that demarcation between knowledge and wisdom, health versus destructive fetish, or curiosity as opposed to a prurient obsession?

It reminds of the scene from one of Woody Allen’s movies, where the future wife-killer invites the couple to their apartment and begins talking to the nervous character about his stamp collection – a detail which the guest neither is interested in, nor has the slightest curiosity to pursue, and instead does his best to avoid the subject and escape without being too blatantly rude in the process.  Or of the interest and hobby which leads to a career, or perhaps a successful marketing venture, as opposed to that which merely consumes one’s time and energy in wasteful degeneration of selfish delight; is there a difference, and what marks the distinction?

There is, of course, that perennial martyrdom of defining the “trees for the forest”, or the “big picture” in contrast to the details – like that scene where the Feds are pursuing Al Capone based upon a general knowledge of his high crimes and massive illegal conspiracies, but from the corner squeaks the voice of a mousy agent with wire-rimmed glasses who suggests getting him on a technicality of tax evasion; no, it is not quite as romantic a basis, but it gets the job done.  And what of technicalities in all arenas of law –  can one presume them to be trivial pursuits, or of utilizing the details in order to win a case where others have seen only the wider expanse of unseen legal maneuvers?

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who thinks that preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is tantamount to a trivial pursuit, the endeavor itself should be reviewed afresh.  For, while the nexus between one’s medical condition and the positional duties which comprise the aggregate of one’s essential elements must be pursued in order to establish that connection to meet the eligibility requirements for a successful Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it is never a trivial matter when one is discussing the stability and security of one’s future.

In the end, it is the “details” which make the difference, and in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application on behalf of the Federal or Postal employee, the attorney who assists in the Federal Disability Retirement application must always recognize that the trivial pursuit of the wider world at large is often the core foundation of the substantive content which comprises an effective OPM Disability Retirement application, and no details should be ignored in that pursuance of excellence in a Federal Disability Retirement case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire