FERS Disability Retirement: Patterns of existence

If you live long enough, you begin to see the patterns of existence; and, perhaps, that is why cynicism begins to creep into the lives of the older generation.  When you have “seen it all”, does the shadow which looms upon the radiance of a midday smile begin to fade with the vestiges of dark clouds approaching?

The repetition of vacuous words emitted from the caverns of a politician’s mouth; the crime waves that never seem to relent no matter the spectrum of punishment versus economic investment; the inflationary impact upon the valuation of monetary policy; and the general rule that, for the most part, tomorrow will be no different than today, and today is the measure to determine the memories of yesterday.

Is there really a “pattern” that comes about every 50, 70, or 100 years?  Many of us may live to witness such patterns if it is the first in the tripartite sequence of numbers — but does twice in witnessing constitute a “pattern”, per se?

Say you saw that X happened when first you became aware of your surroundings after birth; and 50 years later, you saw the same, or “similar” occurrence; does that constitute a “pattern”, or is it merely what Hume contended, that the mere fact of B following upon A does not constitute causality, but merely a coincidence of happenstance of one occurring after the other because there is no “necessary connection” between A and B.  Or, is it that we attribute patterns of existence because we ourselves reside in such repetitive monotony based upon expectations that the room we exited from will still exist in fairly the same way as we left it upon returning to it — vestiges of Berkeley’s idealism and definition of “existence” wedded to perceptual departure?

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 his or her position with the Federal Government or U.S. Postal Service, FERS Disability Retirement should be an option to consider.

Just remember, however, the “rules” governing the patterns of existence: Don’t ever think that such a bureaucratic procedure can be easily maneuvered through; don’t presume that your case is an “easy” one; and don’t believe everything that your Human Resource Office, your Supervisor or even your “best friend at work” is going to tell you everything you need to know.  To do so would be to violate the first rule in the patterns of existence: Things are always more complicated than they seem.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement Law: Sound legal arguments

Arguments in general share a characteristic within the more limited field of those involving legal issues: soundness is based upon factors involving coherence, cogency, consistency and the application of the rules of propositional logic.  The latter — of propositional logic — can get lost in general arguments when they become wrapped in multiple compound statements, shouted with ardor and passion, and conveyed with a sense of unequivocal belief as to one’s “rightness” and doubtless self-righteousness.

Propositional logic within the field of legal argumentation, however, takes on a more limited and restrictive nature, for it normally is contained by the text of legal opinions and cases that have a value of precedence.  The “soundness” or its antonym — of an “unsound legal argument” — largely depends upon how much the legal practitioner will “stretch” the foundational apparatus involved: the analogical arguments used in citing legal precedents.

Future legal opinions — those evolving from the very attempts by lawyers to stretch those precedents into areas heretofore disallowed — are based upon the persuasive propositional logic argued at the appellate level, and even in the various stages of an OPM Disability Retirement case.  On an informal level, of course, one will want to cite legal precedents to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management at the first two stages of the process — at the Initial Stage of the OPM Disability Retirement process, as well as the Second, “Reconsideration” Stage.

At both levels, sound legal argumentation should be employed — by “sound”, meaning that the basic and well-known legal precedents should be cited involving what constitutes meeting the burden of proof in a Federal Disability Retirement application; what meets the legal requirements of an “accommodation”; the importance of medical evidence and the criteria that must be applied in assessing and evaluating the content and substance of the medical evidence presented; as well as the foundational basis of “sound” legal cases which delineate, in a persuasive manner, the compendium of evidentiary documentation which comprises one’s Federal Disability Retirement application.

At the “Third Level” of the process, of course — an appeal to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (or more familiarly known as the “MSPB”) — one must take extra care in presenting sound legal arguments, because there, an Administrative Law Judge will be attuned to the “stretching” and “extension-attempting” arguments that citation of legal precedents may pose, and the “soundness” of one’s knowledge of “the law” is often a prerequisite in even trying to make one’s case before such an Administrative Law Judge.

For, in the end, sound legal arguments are not too dissimilar from arguments sound or unsound in general; they just require an extra component of legal training allowed that involves the proper and effective use and application of arguments by analogy based upon case-law precedents.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Brady, Deflategate & OPM Federal Disability Retirement

It is likely he knew, by evidentiary implication, as the report stated; whether, in the offseason, people pay any attention at all, is another matter altogether; and the dismissive refutations that attempt to justify the actions by minimizing the impact of the insignificant advantage gained by engaging in such conduct, misses the point.

At a certain level of any professional endeavor, the proportional advantage gained by even the smallest of competitive edge, increases by an exponential factor.  When everyone is good at something, then even a minimal sliver of market advantage makes the difference.  This is well known to everyone who once performed at the “top of his or her game”.

For individuals who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, the issue of competitive advantage is tantamount to the proverbial “no brainer”.  Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who work at peak performance levels for an agency, recognize the concept of employment disadvantages, and how a traumatic or chronic event such as an injury or a progressively debilitating medical condition will begin to reduce the capacity once reached.

For Federal and Postal employees 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, it is the deliberateness and intentionality of engaging in such conduct, as exemplified by the case of Deflategate, which irks the Federal or Postal employee.

Life already offers enough tumults and turmoils, and when others engage in acts which clearly violate the standard rules of fair play and traditions of a mere game, while others — such as Federal and Postal employees who must end one’s career early because of an unexpected medical condition — must trudge along, it only points out the exponential factor of what lengths some will go to, just because they think they can.  Not to mention agencies, supervisors, coworkers and other unnamed personnel whose Federal fiefdoms must be protected.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Affirmative Steps

Procrastination is the bane of progress; by delaying and kicking the proverbial can down the road, the chances of decreasing one’s odds of accomplishment become magnified exponentially.  What is the reasoning behind inaction and inertia?

Human life must by necessity involve movement and progress; for, unlike other species who find the immediacy of satisfaction and gratification to be the basis of existential justification, we bring to the fore the coalescence of one’s memory of where we came from; a future hope of where we want to go; and in combing the two, a greater purpose of teleological rationality within the context of the here and now.  But that which provides the foundation of uniqueness, can conversely be the lynchpin of destruction.

Self-justifying language games of self-immolation; we can construct strings of logically valid reasonings based upon convoluted cacophonies of orchestrated mutterings.  But that which appears reasonable is not always valid; and as validity constitutes the systemic structure of logic, so that which may reveal itself as sound uttering may merely be a whining whisper of a mad man’s meanderings.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who can no longer perform all of the essential elements of one’s position, the reasons for not filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits are wide, varied, and often complex.  “This job has been my life for so long” (understandable, but change is often an inevitable feature of life); “Maybe my agency can accommodate me” (unlikely); “I am hoping to get better” (yes, but in the meantime, what is your agency planning to do?).

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is a big and dramatic step.  But for the Federal and Postal worker who cannot perform at least one, if not more than one, of the essential elements of one’s positionally-determined duties, it is time to consider taking some affirmative steps in a direction which one often knows to be true, but where procrastination is the path of least resistance.

And, yes, to err is human, but at what cost, and where does human history reveal that delay results in a successful outcome?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire