Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Disability Retirement Benefits: Preservation

The pendulum of history swings between the two concepts — the other being one of replacement, embracing that which is new and discarding the old.

Preservation involves the decision and act of keeping and maintaining the old.  Most of what is old are replaced and discarded; for, that which is old is often in a state of disrepair, dilapidated and not worthy of upkeep or preservation.

Sentimentality, of course, is often involved — of keeping something merely because it has remained with us for quite a bit of time, or refusing to let go of a past even when that past embraced ugliness and embarrassing antiquities of outdated conceptual constructs.

Preservation can, too, involve human beings — of wanting to safeguard relationships, mementoes, memories, etc., and even careers.  Can a career be “preserved”?  How about employee benefits?

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 all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, preservation of one’s rights, benefits and future security is a crucial necessity going forward with one’s life involving the debilitating medical condition incurred and suffered.

Contact a Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer who specializes in OPM Disability Law and consider the benefit of preserving the salvageable benefits you have worked so hard for, and deserve to preserve.

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 Retirement for Mental or Physical Incapacity: The Process

There is the “process”, and then there is the actual substance of the case.  Often, we are not able to engage ourselves in the substance of the case without having some idea about the process, first.  How it works; where it goes to; how long it takes; who decides it; what happens if it gets denied; what should be done first; “what ifs”; etc.

Not knowing the process often paralyzes us from beginning the process itself, just as not know which came first — the chicken or the egg — if allowed to have actually interfered with the evolution of the universe, would have never produced a single species in nature.

That is why people turn to an “expert” in any given field.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who require filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS because of a medical condition preventing them from continuing in their careers, contact a FERS Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law, for both an understanding of the “process” as well as initiating the substance of the case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Fight or Give Up

Those are the only two choices for most of life’s challenges and encounters: To fight for something, or to abandon it completely.  Of course, the “middle ground” is often preached — as in some sort of compromise, or to learn the “tools” of “conflict resolution”, etc.  But that all depends upon the conflict itself, doesn’t it?

Some issues of contentiousness simply do not accord a middle ground; there is no compromise for the mountain climber inching up the North Face of the Eiger — going back down is just as dangerous as struggling upwards, and so it is to either fight or give up, where the latter results in sure death and becoming a frozen corpse of another defeated detritus.

And in the Animal Kingdom — is there ever an alternative third way?  The predator who chases after its prey; flight for the prey is tantamount to a fight — i.e., to “fight” for one’s life by trying to outrun the predator; or, to give up.  There is no “rationalizing” with the cheetah or the lion; one cannot “reason” with the predator in an effort to try and dissuade it from devouring you for its lunch or dinnertime meal.

And so it is with the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job — the choice is between fighting for the benefit or to simply give up.  There is no middle ground or “conflict resolution”; either the disability retirement is granted in full or not at all.

Further, resignation or termination from the Federal or Postal employment makes the choice as clearly defined in stark terms: continuation in the job is no longer an option, and inaction merely means you have given up because you only have one (1) year from the date of separation to file for Federal Disability Retirement.

If the choice is made to “fight” as opposed to “give up”, then it is best to have an advocate on your side and consult with a lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.  For, if the choice is between fighting or giving up, and the Federal or Postal employee decides to take the former course of action, then give it your best shot by having an attorney who knows the process, cites the relevant law and prepares your case to give you the best opportunity at winning.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Representation: The problem perspective

Does “positive thinking” actually work?  Or, is it one of those pithy approaches to life, where the “throwaway” line is used to dismiss unpleasantries and negative influences that might otherwise disprove the obvious — that life is difficult enough without listening to the difficulties of others?  Then, there is the “problem perspective” — of seeing everything as a problem as opposed to a solution or opportunity, and to see the world as a glass half-empty in contradistinction to a half-full universe.

Objectively, of course, both descriptions reflect the same objective reality; the contention is that “how” we view the world (i.e., our subjective perspective upon the world around us) influences the manner in which we approach the objective world in deliberating, solving, resolving, tackling problems, embracing situations, etc.

The “problem perspective” describes a person who sees everything from the vantage point of a problem.  It is all well and good, of course, to speak about having a “positive” frame of mind when things are going well; it is when actual, objective problems and difficulties arise in one’s life, that the “real test” of whether “positive thinking” works comes into question.

Objectively, of course, one could argue that, whether one possesses a “positive” mindset, a “negative” perspective, or a somewhat neutral approach, the outside world (that “noumenal” universe that Kant referred to) cares not a twit about what we “think” (i.e., the phenomenal universe that Kant distinguished — the one that we actually have access to) about it — for, it still exists whether we have a positive, negative or neutral perspective, anyway.

It is when the objective world impinges upon the subjective perspective with an undeniable negation of the positive — as in, a medical condition that debilitates and makes for a painful existence, whether physically or cognitively — that the test of whether a “positive” outlook works, or whether a “negative” perspective makes a difference, tests our daily 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 worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the approach one takes may indeed make a difference with a real distinction.  Yes, the end of one’s Federal or Postal career may be coming; and, yet, the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service may well move to terminate you based upon your growing inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of your Federal or Postal job.

In the end, such a “problem perspective” is a very real one, and becomes a problem precisely because there is a combination of both the “objective” world (the medical condition itself) and the “subjective” one (what to do about it; the next steps to be taken; the decision to be made, etc.).

Preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, may not only be the best “next step” to take — it may be the “only” one in the sense that all other options are undesirable: to stay and suffer; to resign and walk away without doing anything; or to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

In the end, all “problem perspectives” need a positive solution, and preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application is the best and positive solution for a Federal or Postal employee needing to resolve the problem perspective where one’s medical condition no longer allows for the fulfillment of all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: The unmerited edge

And what did they all do to merit the position of harassing? Merely a negation of something never earned: Not getting sick; not becoming crippled with a medical condition; not having a medical disability. Of what accolades should be showered for that? Why is it that the person whose only success in life is a negation of nothingness, should have any edge at all, merited, unmerited or otherwise?

Life often makes no sense; and, while the concept of “fairness” is quite a subjective one, most can agree at least that being in a state of unmerited oblivion should not accord one any edge at all, but to have it would be “unfair” by fiat of logical acceptability.

Should awards be presented to, and accolades showered upon, those who are in a position of power, influence or application of future determinations upon people’s careers and job security, even if that power that provides an advantage and edge is unmerited?

One can argue that the mere fact that a person has risen to such a position in and of itself constitutes a meritorious status and stature; but, even given that, does not continuing merit depend upon a current historicity of ongoing accomplishments? And, are not some characteristics not merit-based, but merely acquired – such as negations involving “not becoming sick”, “not having a chronic medical condition” and “not being prevented from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job”?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition has come to a point where he or she is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of his or her Federal or Postal job, it may be time to prepare a 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.

In the administrative process of enduring this bureaucratic maze, that Federal or Postal disability retirement applicant will likely encounter the adversarial face-off with Supervisors, Managers and Agency heads who likely possess the unmerited edge – that advantage over the Federal or Postal Federal Disability Retirement applicant – and the power to determine the course of actions contemplated or otherwise begun.

Be careful, however, as the unmerited edge should be distinguished from the power to harass, intimidate and initiate adversarial procedures. For, there are many in this world who possess power and use it indiscriminately, even though it may well be an edge which is unmerited.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: Scoffing paradigms

Of course, such a title can have a double entendre or duality of meanings – that, in the first instance, the accent is upon the word “scoffing” with a lowering of one’s voice upon “paradigms”, and that would mean: One turns up one’s nose at the very idea of paradigms. Or, alternatively, if both words are of equally monotonous tonal undulations, then it could mean that the paradigm itself is one which scoffs at other paradigms, differing principles or contrary perspectives.

As to the first: There are those in life who declare that paradigms are unnecessary, and one needs to simply live life, take things as they come and forget about being able to comprehend “first principles” or other such nonsense. Indeed, that is the bestial side of humanity; animals and all other species live like that, and as the evolutionary perspective has won out and we are left with nothing but the biological counterview of life, so why not us as well in consonance with the rest of the universe?

The second meaning would presume the opposite: for, in order for a superiority of belief-systems beyond modernity’s feeble attempt at generalized equivalence of all such systems, there needs be certain paradigms that are objectively prioritized in significance, importance and relevance of application. In either meanings, while the emphasis upon the direction of the scoffer may differ, the central concept of “paradigms” remains throughout and consistently becomes elevated and magnified as the primary root cause.

Modernity has a dual problem (and many more, besides): On the one hand, nobody any longer believes in grand systems of philosophical import; thus, the Hegels, Kants and Heideggers of yesteryear will not become reincarnated in current or future times, unless there is a wholesale exchange of mindsets. On the other hand, we still cling to a tribal mentality – of wanting and needing to belong to a group that espouses illogical biases and discriminatory tendencies, if only to have some semblance of an identity unique from others; and so we embrace, by unconscious fiat or otherwise estranged ignorance, paradigms that we neither understand nor take the time to comprehend, but instead join in and defend by means of keeping company with other such ignoramuses.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who begin the process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, what becomes quickly evident during the process is that the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Facility will suddenly become encamped and invested in one paradigm, and you in an altogether different paradigm, and then the scoffing begins.

The Federal Disability Retirement applicant (you) are no longer amongst the “for the mission of the agency” paradigm, and you end up being a member of that “other” paradigm whether you like it, choose to, or not. Thus do you participate in the vicious cycle of scoffing paradigms, in either sense of the terms, without even knowing it. Go figure.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Minding the ‘happiness principle’

Is there such a thing?  Certainly, enough authors, gurus and faith-healers have claimed it, packaged it and sold it as a commodity to be prepared, marketed and purchased.  Somehow, we are all gullible enough to believe in it:  Just as sorcerers of old possessed powers beyond human comprehension, so we hold on to the hope that such secrets of soothsayers mixing the concoction in a cauldron of expectations may boil over with fumes and aromas we can smell into oblivion.

That secret incantation; those mysterious sequence of codes (yes, which is why the Da Vinci Code was so popular – until it was made into a movie and the audience realized the farcical nature when bad literature is transformed into an ever worse media script); or perhaps it is a deal of Faustian proportions – of one’s soul for the hidden principle, the fountain of youth, the corridor down timeless ecstasy; instead, of course, in this mass-marketing world of consumer gullibility, we cling to the anticipation – despite all historical evidence to the contrary – that there exists a fortune-teller’s abracadabra comprising a happiness principle.

Principles are the foundational guidance for understanding the causal connections of events that occur in the objective world; first principles, as Aristotle liked to point out, are important in their revelatory powers to comprehend the operational mechanisms of this world of Being.  If you don’t know first principles, or the paradigmatic principles that operate behind the scenes – much like the Wizard behind the curtain —  then you will always only know that it happens, not why it does so.

And so we go through life, walking and wandering the streets, seeing others smiling, laughing and seeming to enjoy life, while we stew in the solitude of our private misery, perhaps outwardly attempting to feign such emotional brightness while inwardly decaying with each day’s tumult of angst and anxiety.

In minding the existence of the ‘happiness principle’, we are everyday falling into the statistical trap of that famous quip attributed to the 19th century Showman, P.T. Barnum, that there’s “a sucker born every minute.”  Even if everyday empirical evidence refutes the existential reality of such a principle, we nevertheless hope against fading hope for such a white knight in shining armor – that armor of protective fallacies based upon a nonexistent principle wrapped in the cloaking of hopes unearned and never to be attained.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are down in the dumps because of a medical condition, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the reality that one’s career may be cut short and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits may be a necessity, must fight against the false hope that a Federal Disability Retirement annuity is the “be-all” and “end-all” of life’s miseries.

Medical conditions may continue to remain chronic; there will likely remain many challenges in the future; but the point of filing for Federal Disability Retirement is to allow for one to attain a plateau of hopefulness where one can make one’s health and well-being a priority, without necessarily minding the ‘happiness principle’ or believing in P.T. Barnum’s secret to success.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire