CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Verbosity

The word itself has an effective resonance — similar in tone and texture to “grandiloquence”, which implies a flourish of rhetorical verbosity; and if one were to combine the two, as in the sentence, “He spoke with verbose grandiloquence,” one need not say anything more about the subject, but the statement says it all.

Verbosity does not necessarily carry a negative connotation, for excessive use of words does not logically entail ineffectiveness.  For instance, if one is attempting to kill time for a greater purpose (e.g., a lecture to the entire police department personnel while one’s co-conspirators are robbing a bank), being verbose (and while at the same time, being grandiloquent) may have a positive benefit.

On the other hand, being either verbose or grandiloquent which results in providing too much peripheral information, or information which may ultimate harm the essence of one’s foundational purpose, may in fact lead to unintended negative consequences.

Thus, in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, one must of course engage in the narrative prose — through medical reports and records; through crafting and submitting one’s Applicant’s Statement of Disability.  In the course of the narrative statement of one’s disability, it is often the case that Federal and Postal Workers will tend to be “verbose”. But purposeful verbosity is the key.

Choose the words carefully.  And make sure that, if along the way, you are also being grandiloquent, try not to be bombastic at the same time.  Imagine that sentence:  “He spoke with a bombastic, verbose grandiloquence.” That says everything.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGil, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: Communication Skills

The ability to communicate involves a complex process:  the capacity to identify and understand what needs to be communicated and for what purpose; retrieval of information and tools of communication from one’s storehouse and warehouse of knowledge; the proper choices to be made in gathering not only the substance of thoughts to be conveyed, but the sequence in which to purvey; editing and last minute self-censorship, as well as its corollary, embellishment of thought, in order to effectively delineate the verbal or written response; and all in an instant of a neurocognitive response.

Mishaps occur; wrong choices of words and combinations of conceptual constructs often become verbalized; and while retractions, apologies and declarations of regret can somewhat ameliorate such blunders, there is often the suspicion that what was stated was and continues to be the true intention and thoughts of the individual who spoke or conveyed them.

For Federal and Postal employees who are considering preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the potential consequences of conveying the wrong thought, information or conceptual construct can result in a denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  That is why it is often necessary to hire an attorney experienced in identifying the proper methodology of information to be conveyed and delineated.

Real life consequences can result from a bureaucratic process such as Federal Disability Retirement.  Unlike family gatherings where mere words are spoken, an application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits cannot be repaired with a simple statement of apology; for, that which leaves the mouth or the written pen, is often the sword which slays the beast.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Responding to Stupidity

Sometimes, one’s initial reaction in a situation — professional setting, social discourse, event gathering, etc. — requires a momentary pause; and it is precisely that couple of seconds of gathering one’s thoughts which saves one from further putting fuel upon a potential fire.

Perhaps you have every right to have responded with a drip of sarcasm; or others would have approved of the lashing back; and still others would say that the response was appropriate and deservedly given.  But the greater question should always be:  how effective was the response; did it evoke the necessary end; and for whose benefit was the aggressive retort given — for the benefit of truth, or for one’s own satisfaction?

In a professional context, of course, it is probably never appropriate to respond in an unprofessional way, if merely by definition alone.  Similarly, in a FERS or CSRS Federal Disability Retirement context, when one receives a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there are statements made — whether one pertaining to mis-application or mis-statement of the law; or perhaps a wrong reference to a medical report; or even more egregious, a selective use of a statement from a medical report or record taken out of context — which can deservedly provoke a response involving sarcasm, a deluge of epithets, or worse, a barrage of ad hominem attacks — and in each case, it would be neither appropriately given, nor proper in a professional sense.

Fortunately, paper presentations and paper responses have the advantage of time over social discourse and person-to-person contact.

Holding one’s breath and counting 3 seconds, or 10, or perhaps an eternity, is an effective way of avoiding catastrophe.  Writing a diatribe of what one wants to say, then trashing it, is also acceptable.  On the other hand, beware of that “send” button; and, moreover, never push that “send to all” button.

That would indeed be unprofessional.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Divide between Words and Reality

The problem with the linguistic universe is that they create a parallel universe which can be completely devoid of any connection or correspondence to the reality of the world which we occupy; thus the span of genres of imaginary creations, including fiction, science fiction, fantasy; as well as the virtual world of video games (which encompasses language because of the imaginary conversations which act “as if” the events occurring in the game itself are real).

The danger of language is that it may well communicate far more than what the objective world represents; and, conversely, it can also convey far less than what one may intend.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the point of language is to describe and delineate the reality of one’s situation; the severity of one’s medical condition; the logical nexus between one’s medical condition and the positional duties one must engage; and the reasoning, based upon medical evidence, of why the Federal or Postal employee cannot perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.

The wide chasm between the world of language and the world of objectivity is the test of success; for, it is the one who can close that gap, and represent the reality of one’s universe by the correspondence of language, who will achieve a successful outcome.

The great divide between language and reality is a challenge which must be approached with care and trepidation; for, in the end, if language fails to correspond to reality, what would be the point of civilization in its endeavor to maintain the historicity of its existence?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Question and Answer

A question presumably is a tool of communication seeking a satisfactory answer; and, conversely, an answer will satisfy the query only upon addressing the specific information sought.  Thus, the question is not merely a general request for irrelevant information, and an answer is not just a sequential set of words culled together from a pool of language.  Yet, many people often act as if speaking a volume of phonetically mellifluous tones will satisfy a query; and that speaking with intonations of a question mark will invite information of relevant import.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to understand the questions posed on the Standard government Forms in a Federal Disability Retirement application; and, similarly, one must take care in providing the proper, relevant, and satisfactory answers to the queries posed.

Questions often have a history; implied requests for information carry a weight of tested legal cases, and thus questions which seem simple on their face have been formulated based upon such case-histories.

For the Federal or Postal employee encountering the question for the first time, it is well to try and understand the vast body of historical context preceding the formulation of each question.  For, as the age-old adage still applies, those who fail to study history are apt to repeat it.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Writing an Effective Federal Disability Retirement Application

According to Ludwig Wittgenstein, the identification of context-appropriate language games is instructive in this linguistic-focused society.  With the explosion of information through the internet, via twitter, Facebook, texting and email, the changing and malleable nature of language is quickly evolving into a populace of blurred lines, where the virtual world and the substantive, Aristotelian world no longer possess clear bifurcations.  However language changes; whatever the form of communication; the need to convey clarity of thought will still and always exist.

It is one thing to experience life; it is another to tell about it.  In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to be able to “tell about it”.

Yes, the primary satisfaction of the legal criteria necessarily requires the substantive experience of the medical condition; but there is a conceptual distinction to be made between “living it”, “telling it”, and “proving it.”  It is presumed that the Federal or Postal employee who is preparing to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits already satisfies the first of the three; it is the second, and especially the third, which presents a problem.

Don’t think that just because you “should qualify” because of the nature, extent and severity of one’s medical condition, that such experiential phenomena justifies the proving of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application.  Ask OPM about it; if you can even get a response back.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Speaking with the Doctor

Communication is the key to a successful outcome:  such a trite truism is certainly applicable in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS & CSRS.  The primary focus when a Federal or Postal employee has a medical condition which is impacting his or her ability to perform all of the essential elements of his or her job, is to take care of the medical condition — i.e., to have the necessary treatments, to undergo the proper prescriptive treatment modalities, including surgery, medication regimens, pain management treatments, psychotherapeutic intervention, etc.

Beyond such treatment modalities, however, there may come a point in the life of a Federal or Postal employee when it is becoming apparent that the medical condition is simply “incompatible” with the useful and efficient retention in the Federal or Postal Service.  Such a determination is best made by the Federal or Postal employee, if possible, as opposed to having the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service suddenly and unceremoniously make such a determination — in the form of a proposed removal based upon one’s failure to maintain a regular work schedule; or because of taking “excessive leave“; or putting a Federal or Postal employee upon a Performance Improvement Plan.  Such a determination may best be made by the Federal or Postal employee by communicating one’s concerns to the treating doctor, and asking some incisive questions.  Another trite truism:  The only stupid question is the one not asked.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire