FERS Disability: Formulating the Reconsideration Rebuttal

It is a frustrating process when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issues a denial and the Federal employee or Postal Service worker must respond effectively within a limited prescribed time.  OPM has all the time in the world to prepare the denial letter, and will often take as long as they want in preparing a lengthy denial letter.

Once received, the denied Federal applicant has 30 days from the date of the denial to “Request Reconsideration” and will be granted 30 additional days beyond the time requested in order to submit any legal response and additional documentary evidence in support of your case.  Then, within that prescribed time period, a response must be prepared and submitted.

It is this formulation of substantive responsiveness that will determine the future course of the next steps — whether a subsequent denial will require a further appeal to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, or with approval of the application, the end of the bureaucratic process has occurred and the next frustrating phase of waiting for the payment department to begin issuing annuity payments will ensue.

As with all things with unlimited time on one’s hands, OPM will extract every word and phrase from doctor’s notes and office visits, take them out of context and interpret everything in favor of denial.

It is often an overwhelming process of a “shotgun approach” where OPM attempts to make it appear as though (A) You were ridiculous in even trying to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits and/or (B) what you had submitted previously was entirely insufficient and need not even be considered any further.

The net effect of the denial letter is to leave you with the impression that you should forget about the whole thing and just give up.  Don’t be fooled by this tactic, because that is all that it is — a ploy to just convince you to give up.

Instead, break down OPM’s arguments into manageable categories, of which the two primary ones are: (1) lack of showing of a deficiency in performance, conduct, or attendance and/or (2) insufficient medical documentation.  Then, attempt to gather any further documentation to reinforce those weak links and argue how the caselaw or statute is met with the additional supportive documents.

One other reminder: So long as you have met the timeframe of requesting reconsideration  within that 30-day period, you have a chance at winning your case —so, make sure you file the request in a timely fashion.  And, furthermore, you may want to contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to help you formulate an effective response.

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 Employee’s Medical Retirement: A Perspective on Truth

The traditional philosophical arguments surrounding the nature of Truth, the “battle” between “Absolute Truth” and “Pure Relativism”, etc., are too often simplified and reduced to sloganeering and shouting matches which end up being nothing more than accusations as to whether one believes in a Higher Order of Being — or not.  Yet, it is often a perspective upon appearances which determines the “truth” of a statement.

Plato pointed this out in reference to the three towers in the distance; if seen from one direction, they appear to be only one; if seen from another, they constitute 3 distinct objects.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in denying a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, takes a similar perspective on truth.  They will take each medical condition cited, isolate each and minimize the impact of the separated medical conditions upon one’s ability or inability to perform the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position, and by approaching the “truth” this way, can purport to make your case appear “as if” you never had any case at all.

Now, some might critically argue that such an approach is “disingenuous” (i.e., somewhat akin to the “absolutist” argument), while others merely view this as “clever” (i.e., akin to the “relativists”).  The point of OPM’s approach is to make you believe that you never had a chance to begin with, and to have you go away without filing for Reconsideration, thus reducing their caseload by a numerical insignificance until multiplied by an exponential factor of greater percentages.

The way to counter OPM’s argument?  To identify their approach and counter it with a different, more powerful perspective on truth — by further medical documentation and more powerful legal argumentation which makes OPM’s argument impotent and irrelevant.

For, in the end, a perspective on truth must be countered by proposing an alternative perspective on truth — of showing that the three-towers-in-one is a mere illusion and a trick of the eye.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Perspective Matters

How we see things; whether with a “positive attitude” or one colored with a negative turn; if one believes in the cause, or not; whether one’s initial reaction is one of anger and disbelief, or of despair; for, in the end, tackling issues is not a matter of right or wrong, but of how we view them.

Of course, a positive attitude alone will not necessarily get you anywhere; as reality abuts against the perspective we bring, it is often the combination of a “proper assessment” combined with our attitude and approach which makes all of the difference.  Are we seeing all of the alternatives involved?  Can a better argument be made in such a case?  Have we exhausted all of the avenues of evidentiary findings?  Have we chosen the best arguments?

G.K. Chesterton once wrote that Charles Dickens and H.W. Wells looked upon their respective fictional characters in vastly differently ways: The former, with a fondness like a father upon his children; the latter, with also a fondness — but like a butcher upon the chosen pig.  Both have a perspective of “fondness”; yet, it is an approach from very different directions.

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 one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, Federal Disability Retirement should be an option to be considered.

A medical condition often impacts upon one’s perspective, you should consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law; for, perspective does indeed matter, and the best legal representation is one which objectively evaluates all perspectives that matter.  Consult with an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and see whether or not your perspective is the “right” one.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal & Federal Disability Retirement: The Invisible Barrier

The visible ones come in all shapes and sizes, and it is the challenge of “how” to overcome them, get around them, climb over them, dig under them, etc., that presents the unique problem.  It is always the “invisible” ones which are the most difficult to overcome and challenging to prepare for.

We can sometimes identify the invisible barrier; at other times, we know not what prevents us from moving forward.  The psychology of inner turmoil; traumatic events which paralyze us; loss of motivation, cessation of interest, fears that freeze and ruminations that distract; whatever the invisible barrier, it prevents an individual from moving forward in life.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition that prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it is often that unknown, unidentifiable and unrecognized invisible barrier that stops you from moving forward.

Consult with a FERS Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement benefits, and let the legal representative move you forward on the chessboard of life’s refrain.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal and Postal Employees: Stupid Mistakes

Our first reaction may be that such a phrase is in fact a tautology; for, to make a “mistake” is by definition to do something “stupid”, and so it is merely a redundancy to use and place both terms together.  But surely we can conceive of circumstances in which “making a mistake” turns out to be the very opposite of having done something “stupid”?

Perhaps some earth-shattering mistake in science resulted in a new discovery — of having made a mistake in combining two or more elements but resulting in a new, composite element beneficial to society?  Or of having made an accounting error which accrued to one’s personal financial benefit?  But even then, one may argue that the mistake itself was a stupid one; the consequences merely turned out to be beneficial, but that doesn’t necessarily impact the character of the mistake itself.

And what of follies in our youth?  Does age and greater experience, retrospectively reflecting back into the series of life’s mistakes and actions thoughtlessly taken, lead us to conclude that we have made multiple “stupid mistakes”?  What, then, constitutes a “mistake” such that it was stupid?

Often, a glimpse into what we did in the past — of having forged ahead without a plan, thoughtlessly, and without due diligence in considering all of the factors; these, and many more actions taken without an inkling of preparatory counsel, constitute what most people consider as a “stupid mistake”.

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, it may be necessary to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.  In doing so, it is necessary to have a full and comprehensive understanding of the laws which govern FERS Disability Retirement and the administrative process and procedures abounding.

Consult with a FERS Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, lest you come to regret it as one more “stupid mistake” that was made — as one of many that we all make throughout our lifetimes.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Information: Strategy

Without one, military operations are doomed at the outset; with one, one can retain a false sense of security within the relative insularity of a conceptual paradigm.

Strategies need to be malleable and adaptable; otherwise, when the hypothetical hits the practical, the seams of a well-knit sweater can quickly begin to come apart.  That is why the best chess players have already considered not only ten moves ahead, but an exponential number of alternative reactions based upon each move’s counteraction; and the Master Go player, likewise, has already foreseen the pattern of a full board before placing the first piece upon the criss-crossing lines that bring about the pattern of completion.

A strategy is never the final plan; it is not even an intermediate one; it is, instead, the preplanning of a plan that must develop as one encounters reality within the universe of a mental construct already imposing upon the future foretelling of a past yet unknown and unknowable.  As a noun, it may remain fallow and inert, ineffective to the vicissitudes of realty’s modifications; but as an active verb, to “strategize” is merely to foretell of an initial action, always ready to abide by the encounters which reality forces, and be willing to react to unpredictable modifications that compel a correlative counterpoint.

Perhaps one’s life did not unfold in a pattern expected, predicted, or otherwise desired; no matter, for there are other strategies to pursue when life forces change and modification upon us.

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, it may be time to “strategize” 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.

Life-choices need a strategy; the strategy for the Federal employee or Postal worker, when injured or otherwise unable to perform the full duties of one’s job, is to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement, and the first step in strategizing is to contact an attorney who specializes in the Law of Federal Disability Retirement and to begin initiating the steps necessary for a strategy of efficacy and success.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: The lost ball in the field

We come upon it, and it sits gleaming with partial concealment in the tall grass beyond the river’s edge.  Whose was it?  Was it a child who threw it, or a parent, grandparent, or maybe even a sibling?  Did the child search for it, or was it forgotten soon after a futile search in directions otherwise unaccounted for?

Was there a party gathered, a picnic prepared and a blanket covered upon the grassy knoll; and were gloves included in the melee?  Was there laughter rumbling through the forest beyond, slowly dissipating in voices joyfully warmth in the sunlight of mumblings incomprehensible and lost among the groves of wildlife hidden behind and beyond?  Was the chatter of children full in the morning air, or lost in the heat of a midsummer’s dream?  From a lost ball in the field, can reality be reconstructed, or are the imaginations of dreams forgotten and hopes still hinting of a future unfulfilled, forever to be a wistful memory of what could have been, was, or even might have been?

Perhaps, some over-exuberant father threw the ball and it sailed over the head of the child; the child, watching as it travels overhead, then behind, then beyond where the periphery of limits placed in a universe that has been foretold of dangers and mysteries, watches as it bounces a few times, then disappears.  Perhaps there is a shout – something like, “Sorry, Tommy…let’s go find it!”  Then, a rush and rustling of footsteps, and a made-up race to the finish line: “First one that finds it is the winner!”

Gleeful shouts and joyful shivers, even in the sunlight of warmth and happiness, because for this moment, in this slice of time, a lost ball is bound to yet be discovered, and it is merely a temporary delay in yet an incomplete day’s fun.  But the search reveals nothing; the world conceals and refuses to cough up and unravel the mysteries of hidden meanings; and after a time, further voices calling for the consumption of picnics prepared and sandwiches to be unwrapped, and the sagging shoulders of a disappointed child must needs be the focal point of a universe otherwise uncaring and impervious.

Is this what happened, or did an old codger have a ball in his back pocket, was taking a walk with his dog, and it dropped silently out and rolled into the field, leaving behind any such creative imaginings to another page, an unfinished chapter, or a novel unpublished?

Things can be created out of whole cloth, or not at all.  What we include in the narrative of our meanderings is a choice, of sorts.  The child that walked away that mid-summer day’s loss – of what sorrow did he carry, and what tales did he tell tomorrow to his friends at school?  We all carry around narratives; what we choose to relate is up to us.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are preparing SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, in formulating a Federal Disability Retirement application to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management – remember that, like the boy’s experience of the lost ball, the content of the narrative is important, and the delineation of the tonal quality of the facts is significant; choose with discretion the substance of the responses, lest the lost ball becomes found again, and it turns out that it was the old codger, after all, and not by the wonderment of a child’s unbelieving eyes.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Potentiality extinguished

Aristotle addresses the concept well; of the inherent nature of being not defined merely by the state of current existence, but encompassing the finite potentiality of what it is yet to be, as well as being based upon the historical lineage of origination.  Only within the context of that truism can children be treated as more than mere commodities of sweatshop workers, as in the days of Dickens and the Industrial Age empowered by the need for cheap labor; and on the other side of the spectrum, the old and infirm whose contribution to society has reached its apex of productivity, and is slowly receding into the sunset of former days filled with youth and vigor.

Without the argument of potentiality progressing linearly towards actualization, we are left with Camus’ world of the absurd, the loss of any sense that the Phoenix would rise from the ashes of forgotten civilizations, and the eternal loss of beauty reflected in a fluttering butterfly caught in the quietude of restless twilight, with wings shorn and shredded by timeless envy when humanity disappeared, love was forever forgotten, and the laughter of children playing in the sand no longer brought a smile upon the grandmother sitting in a rocking chair of timeless hope.

Organizations tend to do that; modernity almost guarantees it; and the unstoppable march of bureaucracies and administrative agencies possess a subtle manner of extinguishing that innate potentiality with which we once glowed like an insatiable torch bright upon a conquered hill.

Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who once viewed his or her career in “that way” — of a limitless expanse for doing good, in accomplishing important and relevant missions, and abiding by the complexity of the system but always with a hope that one can impart significant change from within — often become disillusioned and disengaged, once the bump of reality impedes upon the dreams of yesteryear.

And for Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal employee and the U.S. Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional duties, the dent of stubbornness encountered begins to wear upon the soul of hope.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is often the only route available when the incremental insidiousness of resistance to change, adaptation and responsive loyalty is spoken of with silence and increasingly hostile and punitive actions; for, in the end, the Federal or Postal worker who is no longer wanted by the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service, must recognize that the potential for the extinguishment of potentiality exists in reality, and it would be a real shame to allow for such potential extinguishment to become an actualization of fated potentiality.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Throwing caution to the wind

Rash acts rarely reward with corresponding clarity; it is in the very thoughtlessness which denotes the chasm between man’s vaunted rationality and the capacity for folly.  In the end, the very idea of throwing caution to the wind shows the precursor of a necessary posit:  In which direction is the wind blowing?  For, if what is thrown is rebounded right back, like a boomerang designed to be handed back to its originator, then what use was the initial act?

Even acts which appear to be based upon folly, youthful exuberance or momentary madness, must by fiat declare itself as predisposed to prior deliberation; otherwise, rashness become ineptitude, and allowance remains arbitrariness.  It is, indeed, this notion of man’s necessity by self-definition to determine his or her course for the future by already-known steps and discerned future; yet, the future is precisely that — a time somewhere hence which defies definitive boundaries of clarity.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must consider 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 very issue of filing and becoming medically retired is often forestalled precisely because such an act of filing for Federal OPM Disability Retirement is often tantamount to throwing caution to the wind.  Yet, determination of actions must not always be governed by rational discourse of thought; instead, the human condition itself will often reveal the ineptitude of cautionary hesitation.

There is a wide chasm between thought and action, and evolutionary biology inserted the space of hesitation for a good reason:  data left uninterpreted is mere information of useless value.  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 gap between thought and action is nothing more than fear unbounded.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM becomes a necessity, precisely because caution can no longer be the reason for hesitation; the winds have already shifted, and what will be blown back in rebounding ferocity is the agency’s punitive actions for refusing to leave, and not the spit which you tried to force into the face of the gods of fate.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Medical Retirement: The language of law

Wittgenstein recognized that there exists various forms of languages within a community of a shared language — with words everyone understood, sentences all were familiar with, but the usage and meaning of which were unique to a particular group or set of individuals.  Such comity of meanings and esoteric application of language were designated as “language games”.  Information Technology groups have their own set of insulated meanings; advertising agents, insurance companies, and children who form an exclusive club may formulate within-community code words exclusive to the group alone, and alien to all around.

What, then, is the language of law?  Certainly, analogy and hypothetical models of similar situations and transactions are a part of it; and the methodology of argumentation is to show the familiarity of classes of subject-matter issues and identical-sounding situations which penetrate the judge’s capacity to accept and anticipate precedent-setting citations of prior acts.  Why the language game of the legal arena accepts as a primary basis of interaction similar-sounding prior fact-scenarios is often a mystery to “outsiders” (i.e., non-lawyers), and confounds with frustration the enormous expenditure of time and money in engaging such circuitous narratives of persuasive argumentation.

What about my case?  What difference does it make whether or not a decades-old case applies in an analogical manner to the facts at hand?  But that is precisely the point of the language of law; for, it is consistency of application and perpetuation of stability which makes for reverence for “the law”.  Arbitrariness and malleability creates suspicion of motives, and justice requires the fair constancy of applying “the law”.

This is important to understand in all arenas of the “language game of law”, and for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who may need to entertain the potentiality for filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal Worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the entrance into “Administrative Law” (which is what filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM falls under) is no different.

Precedent-setting cases develop over decades and epochs of lifetimes; and whether the OPM Disability Retirement applicant is aware of it or not, the compendium of rules, regulations and decision-setting conclusions are all guided by, constricted within, and influenced throughout, by prior cases handed down by judicial opinions rendered “on high” by administrative law judges and Federal Court of Appeals mandates.

Should case laws be cited in the submission of a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application?  As the law is the hinge upon which society survives, so the question of persuasive argumentation may live or die based upon the vocalization of precedents.

But always remember that the language of law is a specific type of language game, and the exclusive club of legalese requires some training of usage, where applicability may sound like gobbledygook unless formulated with an ear towards coherence within the insular language game of law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire