FERS Medical Retirement from OPM: Elevating Silliness

Much of the political rancor of modernity is silliness, and the insularity of our lives — of engaging in social media discussions, thinking that serious conversations can be engaged on Smart Phones and computers, etc. — is the elevating of such silliness.

Then, when a hurricane hits an area and devastates a population, we realize that there are actually real and serious issues facing us which transcend politics and the rancor of disputatious irrelevancies.  There are, of course, many issues which continue to deride their seriousness by non-action and inaction, such as the growing national debt, the inflationary impact of unfettered spending, etc.

But then, the very fact of inaction and ignoring of such issues so that any resolution or attempted legislative corrections are merely “punted down the metaphorical and proverbial road” for future generations to deal with — well, that in and of itself, is elevating the entire process to a level of silliness unheard of.

One area of seriousness which should never be elevated as silliness but is nevertheless so often done, is the protection of employee rights.  Federal Disability Retirement Law is one such area, and everyone should consider it a sacred law to be protected and secured.

It is part of the “employment benefits” which all Federal and Postal employees enjoy; and while it is taken for granted — most Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers never even think about it because, when you are a healthy individual enjoying the fruits of your labor, you naturally do not concern yourself with “what ifs” — it is there for you to access it when and if needed.

If you are a Federal or Postal employee with a minimum of 18 months of Federal Service, and you find that you can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of your job, contact an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Health is one of those issues which can never be silliness to be elevated, for it is the essential fibre of one’s life.  And while we can often distance ourselves and look up the elevated silliness which pervades our society — especially in politics — we can at least all agree that health is one subject which is neither silly, nor needed to be elevated.

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: Between the Particular and the Universal

There is always a distance between the particular and the universal.  In syllogistic logic, a universal can never be derived from a major and minor premise proposing particulars.

You cannot argue that because Harry down the street wears blue pants, and Joseph next door wears green pants, that therefore the whole world wears either green or blue pants.  You can, however, argue that Since all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, that therefore Socrates is mortal — deriving a universal from a Major Premise which is universal, a minor premise which is particular, and ending with a conclusion which is universal.

Effective conversations often go that route — between “kitchen-table talk” and more generalized conversations which avoid the particulars, lest such personalized conversations lead to acrimonious, seemingly-confrontational and unpleasant exchanges.  Talks with your kids have to thread the fine line between accusatory admonitions and seemingly harmless, more generalized analogies.  That’s why the Bible cautions one not to provoke one’s children; for, overly particularized conversations become too uncomfortably provocative.

There is thus the twilight between the particular and the universal, and for Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service workers who want to prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, a fine line and a delicate balance must be implicated between the chasm separating the particular and the universal.

What is identified as the Twilight between the two must be cautiously maneuvered through.  Too much information in the particular can defeat a Federal Medical Retirement case.  Overly emphasizing the universal — the statutes and the laws governing every Federal Disability Retirement case — without the backdrop of the particulars of one’s medical conditions, can likewise defeat a Federal or Postal Service Disability Retirement claim.  That delicate balance must be achieved — of the Twilight Between the Particular and the Universal.

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and thread the delicate line within the Twilight between the Particular and the Universal.

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.

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: The Stuff of Life

Living life is difficult — for, it is the stuff of life which we must endure and experience which is comprised of the struggle and (often) sadness which we call “living”.

There are enough “escapes” which we embrace: of a novel which takes us into a different universe; a movie which transports us to another time; or the Internet, where we can create a different me than the one which lives the life I live.  Other species, or course, are unable to stand apart from ourselves and view the life we live: Instead, they merely “live”.

Medical conditions are, unfortunately, a part of this living — of the recognition of deterioration, change and challenges which must be met.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must contend with adding to the stuff of life — of a medical condition on top of the daily struggles we must engage and overcome — FERS Disability Retirement benefits are there to fight for.

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider the stuff of life which includes both a medical condition and the need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits — and the struggle to fight for your right to those benefits you worked so hard to earn.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal & Federal Disability Retirement: Competing Interests

It is a concept which is familiar to all; for, within a society where various individuals interact, where each person represents a self-interest and groups of individuals combine to form aggregate (or “corporate”) interests, the competition that develops and erupts is a natural phenomena.

For the most part, society operates well and rather smoothly; courts allow for competing interests that have reached a point where resolution must be arbitrated by a third-party authority; physical violence where competing interests resulted in an altercation are resolved by a criminal judicial system; and a well-trained police force deals with competing interests where laws have been violated.

Between nations, competing interests are often resolved by diplomatic negotiations — or end up in wars, resulting in devastation and famine for the general population.

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 competing interest which should be identified are: The applicant, whose interest is to obtain a Federal Disability Retirement benefit; the Federal Agency or Postal Unit, who may or may not be supportive of the employee/applicant, and thus may represent a “first order” competing interest; and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whose competing interest is to deny, where possible, the employee’s application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

There is also a fourth “competing interest” — that of a Federal Disability Lawyer who will effectively represent the Federal or Postal employee.

Such a lawyer, however, “competes” against the Agency and OPM, and advocates for the Federal or Postal employee.  Consult with an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider whether or not you need proper legal representation in competing against the competing interests you will be facing in a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Stifling rationalism

Although it may no longer show in modernity, it was the dominant methodology accepted as reflecting the Aristotelian belief that man is essentially a rational animal, and thus the general approach towards reaching conclusions should embrace the perspective that the criterion of truth is based upon not sensory, but intellectual and deductive foundations.

But if the thought process fails to utilize the formal laws governing deductive reasoning, and nobody reads Russell or Quine, anyway, what is the difference?  Is it merely an appendage to the conclusion reached, by declaring, “That’s the only logical way to think about this!” – and if we add the exclamation point, state it with a clear and loud voice, does that make it so? What is the distinction to be made, from a valuation or validation viewpoint, between decisions and judgments rendered based upon empirical evidence, deductive or logical reasoning, a combination of both or all three, and the contrast as against an “emotional” basis for reaching conclusions?

If an individual engages in complex futures trading on the stock market, for example, and bases such transactional activities upon unscientific methodologies, is it not the success of the venture (i.e., a retrospective judgment on the matter) that will ultimately determine the success or failure of each approach?

Take the hypothetical of the following: Securities and futures trading can now be done with a laptop from home, and we have Jim, Nancy and Deborah, each of whom thinks that he or she constitutes the brilliance of Wall Street’s best and brightest (though none have had any prior experience but are engaged in vocations far and distant from anything to do with it).

Jim looks at the relevant newspaper quotations and likes the way the numbers coalesce, and makes the trade based upon that comforting sensory impression.  Nancy, in a different state and unbeknownst to Jim, has been pouring over the numbers, calculating, looking at the history of past performances, and creates an algorithm founded upon a calculus of probabilities, and pushes that computer button to deplete one’s bank account based upon mathematical precision that approaches some semblance of certainty, but never quite.  And Deborah, well, she possesses on this day a certain “instinctive” feeling about a particular futures trade, and proceeds entirely upon this emotional response.  Of the three, whom do we consider as validated, worthy of following or respecting of methodologies?

If Deborah were to increase her portfolio by, say, 500%, and Jim merely breaks even but Nancy loses her proverbial shirt, would we dismiss it by thinking, “Ah, just pure luck”?  On the other hand, if Jim were to make a nominal profit, Nancy were to obtain significant returns, and it was Deborah who lost everything, would it change our attitudes and confirm the notion that rationalism prevailed because it is the only valid approach to life’s complexities?

The acceptance of rationalism is inevitable for the rational animal; elevating it to a status where all other approaches are stifled, however, can ignore the spectrum of other dimensions just as valid in human life.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition necessitates preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it may be that “rationality” cautions one to remain in the Federal or Postal job because of job security and financial stability.

But there are other considerations, as well, such as an instinctive will to survive; and when stifling rationalism quiets the voice of health’s call to safety, it may well be time to consider 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.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: The end of Act I, Scene I

Whether it is in some obscure off-Broadway play, or in a Shakespearean tragedy presented with lavish costumes and elaborate affectations, the end in Act I, Scene I sets the stage for the narrative following.  Yes, yes – one can argue that there are “other” scenes, acts, pivotal moments and significant slices which also formulate the argument for such commanding cohesion in a story; but that misses the point – for, if everything is relevant, then nothing is important; and if nothing is important, then it negates the pointing out of relevance itself.

The great Chekhov is the one who pointed out that, if you are going to introduce a shotgun in the first scene, then you must use it sometime, somewhere, later; otherwise, you have left the audience with a titillating artifice with no signification of purpose, thereby failing to be true and honest with your viewers and violating the sanctity of that most important of connections:  the collective belief of the audience of the constructed trust in you.

There are always pivotal moments in every life lived; of remorse and regret too burdensome to live out, or minor irritants of projects left undone and cast aside both in memory and in discourse of behavior.  We often treat the end of Act I, Scene I “as if” – and that is the mistake which the metaphor fails to embrace.  For, there are always many scenes to follow, and when we make too much of a slice of one’s life as that “pivotal” moment of despair and regret, it robs the rest of the narrative and creates a vacuum and extinguishment of life’s subsequent moments of linear significance, like the proverbial skeleton in the closet of one’s hidden past, echoing with haunting sobs of silent regrets, always pulling back into a time of past remorse, when a wider expanse of future hope still resides.

One should always keep a proper perspective, both in living a life as well as in learning of another’s; for, it cannot be that any single slice constitutes the entirety of the greater whole, and to make it so is to miss the opportunities of subsequent events by relying too heavily upon prior travesties.   To dwell on the past and to set a given moment as a sort of eureka event where an epiphany is attained is to remain forever stuck in a quick sand of self-delusion.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are intending upon filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, but who – for whatever reasons of regret, remorse of affectations of reaching a seeming epiphany, and thus hesitates for fear of living that regret or remorse – the important thing to consider is that, while the end of a career may well constitute a change of present circumstances, it should merely be likened to the end of Act I, Scene I, and not the end of the play itself.

There is much to do beyond receiving a Federal Disability Retirement – one can, for instance, find a different kind of job, vocation or work in the private sector, and make up to 80% of what one’s (now former) Federal position currently pays, and continue to receive such pay on top of the Federal Disability Retirement annuity.  As such, the Federal or Postal employee should never simply pack up and go home after Act I, Scene I – as there is much left to the narrative, especially when it comes to living the real life of one’s own play.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Understanding

The Master asks one of his two dogs, “Where is ___?”  If the second pet wags her tail, looks quizzically at the owner, then proceeds to go to the far end of the next room and locates the wandering misfit and barks to you that she has found him – do we disbelieve?  If the same question were to be asked of one’s child in reference to a sibling, and the identical result occurs where the first child goes into another room or runs up into the attic and locates the lost soul, would there be any doubt?

Same circumstances, identical behaviors, concurrent results; merely different mammals within the genus of species, and yet we disbelieve because of arrogance and pride of self-worth.  Why is it that we refuse to attribute understanding to non-human entities despite clear evidence to the contrary?  Is language defined by grammatical rules of construction retrospectively applied, and does that constitute a basis for refusing to allow admittance into the colony of intelligence “clubs” of exclusivity we have created based upon rules of comprehension we have paradoxically constructed?

The rules constituting grammatical comprehension and technical application came subsequent to language itself; for, no one believes that Man sat down eons ago and decided to set down rules of linguistic conveyance, upon which the growing population then began to follow.  No, conformity to such constricting paradigms were initiated, instituted and concretized when society recognized that there were differences in parochial intonations, and those who had nothing better to do decided with arrogance and ivory-tower nose-lifting that correct idioms of speech needed to be recognized, applied and adhered to.

And what of animals?  So long as the working paradigm consisted of our self-image as just below the angels and above the burdens of beasts, we refused their eligibility to the elite of elasticity in language and comprehension.  Yet, despite all of the convoluted attempts at avoiding acknowledgment and recognition that “to understand” is nothing more than the behavior following an utterance of speech, the pragmatism of daily life refutes our own methodology of exclusionary conduct.  For, in the end, it is merely the impact of speech upon behavior in a given society, whether that indicates a “human” world or a “dog” universe.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering 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, the question of “understanding” before “acting” often becomes a vicious circularity resulting in non-action:  The complexity of the legal tangles in Federal Disability Retirement law tends to make the Federal or Postal employee pause; failure to act in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application serves to exacerbate one’s condition, which leads to greater stress and turmoil; non-action results.

The key is to recognize that “understanding” – not even “complete understanding” – is necessary.  Rather, it is often the subsequent initiation of acting following a verbal commitment that is the only real test of understanding.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Private thoughts, public offerings

The bifurcation of human contemplation can take many forms, and rarely do they conflict with each other, unless the former is involuntarily injected into the cauldron of the latter.  One can hold private thoughts contrary to one’s public image; and the public self can contradict the private soul without a condemnation of hypocrisy, so long as the two are never manifested as unconcealed revelations of surprised protocols.

We suspect that exacting consistency between the former and latter has never existed in the history of mankind – beginning with the dawn of hunters who trembled with an inner fear so violent that want of flight was paused only by the shame that would prevail at the tribal dance where bravery, conquest and manhood are celebrated; or in more “civilized” settings when socialites raised eyebrows upon behaviors deemed uncouth and agrarian, where divisions of social consciousness resulted from the miscreant amassing of wealth previously unknown.

Can resentment be concealed in a long-enduring marriage, or fear of death be tightly coiled within the heart of a warrior?  The samurai who gave his fearless allegiance to the daimyo, who in turn swore body and soul to the Shogun – did they avert the openness of their trembling by dispensing favors and accolades to the underlings who disseminated the fearsome bloodlettings?  And what of politicians today – the acceptability of having a “private belief” contrary to the “public stance” – do they constitute a hypocrisy, or an acceptable division of setting aside personal feelings for the greater good in public service?

Often, the misguided confusion arising between a conflict of contrasting private thoughts and public offerings, is just that:  We fail to contemplate the ends thought, and mix the means for motives untold, and in the muddle of such a conundrum of confusion, think that it reflects upon the meanness of our own souls, without recognizing that human frailty must always allow for a bit of good humor, if we are to survive the self-flagellation of our inner desires.

Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers have this same problem – of fealty and loyalty to a Federal daimyo or Postal Shogunate without considering the misguided and irrational basis of such compelling inconsistency.  The thought that loyalty to an agency or fealty to the Postal Service must continue despite hostility and abuse perpetrated merely for suffering from a medical condition brought on through no fault of the Postal worker or Federal employee, is tantamount to the bifurcation between private thoughts and public offerings:  publicly, in the company of coworkers, supervisors and managers, the smile of contentment and membership in the agency’s team spirit must be on full display; privately, the suspicions and paranoia mount because of the workplace hostility engaged by others.

Betrayal itself is often a misguided embracing of a blind trust; you cannot betray those who have already undermined your every turn.  Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is a very private matter, precisely because it involves the most private of information – one’s medical condition and the records which reveal the intimate and private details of it all.

Filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, first through one’s own Agency or H.R. Department, then to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is a “public” act in many ways, and it is that act alone which often makes one pause.  But this is where the “rub” must be faced:  In order to access a public right (filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits), some extent of the private information (the medical condition; doctor’s narratives, office and treatment notes, etc.) must be “offered”.  Yes, it is a difficult decision – but one which must be faced in order to get beyond the private hell within the cauldron of the public hostility and workplace harassment which will only continue until an effective Federal Disability Retirement application is approved by OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire