Federal Disability Retirement under FERS: Spectator Sports

Psychologists and commentators in general have had a field day (yes, the bad pun is intentional — but who can avoid it?) with analyzing and providing “expert” opinions on the matter, which essentially plays with (yes, yes, another bad pun) the following question: Why are people so enamored by watching others play a game?  What is it about the concept of spectator sports that draws such a crow?  What is it about being part of a “team” that results in people acting in such bizarre ways?

It is, of course, an easy transition to other areas of one’s life — from spectator sports to the political rally; of parades and cheering crows; of legions of a cheering populace gathered to welcome the Roman troops returning from battle; of D-Day and V-J Day; of the stadiums filled for the World Cup in Soccer to the excesses of the Super Bowl; of March Madness and the tradition of Friday Football (High Schools), Saturday Football (Colleges) and Sunday Pro football games; and what the Covid-19 Pandemic reflected when everyone was shut in, but with curtailed capacity to view such spectator sports.

What does it reveal about us?  Had the Romans, with their vast coliseums, already figured out the human psychology — of the need for spectator sports — in order to satisfy the blood-thirsty need of a restless populace?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are needing to filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, hiring a disability attorney who specializes in Federal Medical Retirement Law is often approached as one does a spectator sport: Who has the highest winning percentage?  What Law Firm will treat me as a “team member”?  And, the flip side is also true, concerning the perspective of the Agency: “How will my ‘team’ (the Agency) treat me?” “How will my team react?”

Whether fortunate or unfortunate, the psychology of spectator sports is how everyone views things, but for the Federal or Postal employee who is ready to contact a FERS Disability Lawyer to initiate the process of OPM Disability Retirement, understand that trying to get an Federal Disability Retirement is ultimately not a spectator sport; for, it is the reality of a life endeavor, and your full participation will be needed on the “field” of the early retirement process.

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 Attorney Help: Turning the Proverbial Corner

Hope is what motivates; without it, even a figment of a semblance of it, the energy to continue becomes depleted and dissipated.

Turning the proverbial corner is often that glint of hope — of thinking that one is on the verge of change, alteration, modification, improvement and success.  And when desperation rears its ugly head (yes, another proverb of sorts), any improvement at all becomes a welcomed turn of the page (and again, another proverb we are familiar with).

Chronic medical conditions tend to extend and prolong such causes of hope; of a doctor’s positive attitude, the physical therapist’s “goals to achieve”; or perhaps the nurse’s notation that you are “better” today as opposed to the month before.  But objectively — can this continue until you are eligible for full retirement?

The proverb itself — of turning the corner — may be to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, for the Federal or Postal employee.

Perhaps the “change” to consider is not the medical condition itself, but rather, the job and responsibilities which come with the job — that position which you can no longer perform because of the medical condition itself.

Contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider turning the proverbial corner by preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS.

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 & Postal Early Medical Retirement: The Ornament of Language

We have all come across that experience — of people who talk, but say nothing; of eloquence without substance; or of the “great talker” who, after the party is over, stands alone in the solitary corner of irrelevance.

Language is meant to communicate; moreover, to provide the narrative of life and living.  The ornament of language — those hanging extras and decorations meant to embellish and enhance — is provided for various purposes, including exaggeration and to make it more “interesting”.

The question encountered in any narrative is to ask: How much bare-bones substance and to what extent ornamentation?  This is like the question: How much history should be provided, and to what extent, context and personal asides?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition and must submit a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the question of content and substance as opposed to background information often triggers the concern about the ornament of language.

Precision is preferred; tangents should be avoided; the foundation of a case should be solidly constructed.

Contact an OPM Lawyer who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law and begin the process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS with both the substantive content of a persuasive legal argument as well as the ornament of language which will compel the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to approve your case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

OPM Medical Retirement for Federal Government Employees: On Hold

It is a frustrating time; that moment when you have finally reached a “real person”, and the voice quickly says, “Let me put you on hold for a moment” — and the sudden silence which ensues, or the supposedly uplifting background music that blares.  “But I —” you attempt to quickly interject; but the finger punching the button for “hold” is quicker than the “but” with which your voice tries to override, and the further frustration is again postponed as you wait silently in growing rage.

Or of a career “on hold”; or one’s life in general.

Much of being placed on hold is because of circumstances beyond your control; for, contingencies rely upon the actions of third parties, and until the dependent clauses are satisfied, movement of the primary sentence structure must remain in place, lest the comma that encircles the dependent clause fails to complete the thought that follows.

For Federal and Postal employees 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, the feeling of being placed “on hold” is a familiar one: Medical conditions tend to do that.  It places one in suspended animation, not allowing you to move forward with your life until there is some resolution.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider whether or not filing and obtaining a Federal Medical Retirement annuity might be the best next course of action in order to move on with your life and get beyond the “on hold” status of your present situation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Interests at odds

A comity of interests has to arise in order for relationships to “work” — in whatever arena of meaning such a term must apply.  When interests are at odds, it means that the goals, orientation and direction of each of the parties are conflicted.  A “conflict”, of course, can be direct or indirect, and can be on various levels of complexities, but in general would imply a need to sever ties unless such conflicts are resolved.

In the employment arena, the comity of interests is fairly straightforward: The employer has a set of interests that need to be pursued; the employee, desiring to advance the interests of the employer, agrees to join in with the comity of interests in the common pursuit of stated goals.  Compensation is agreed upon; certain conditions are mutually stated and a contract, whether explicit or implied, is formed.

Conflicts may arise during the course of employment, of course; if a competitor makes an offer to the employee unbeknownst to the employer that directly or indirectly conflicts with the stated goals of the employer, certain ethical questions may arise.  Or, if certain employment conditions fail to be met, the “interests” of each begin to be “at odds” — an odd way of putting it, but that is the lexicon that has arisen in the employment arena.  It is almost a euphemism to avoid the harsh reality of other “choice” words.

Medical conditions can certainly “bring to odds” and damage the employer-employee relationship, and certainly Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers recognize that.

The “solution” that has been preemptively provided is the benefit known as “Federal Disability Retirement” — it is a means to avoid or otherwise resolve the conflict that arises when a Federal employee or Postal worker can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job — where, in the event of a medical condition no longer allowing for the Federal or Postal employee to fulfill certain of the employment conditions agreed upon (i.e., not being able to maintain a regular work attendance; unable to work full time any longer; taking too much SL or LWOP; unable to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job, etc.), then it is time to access the benefit of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Of course, the “interests at odds” is not just between the employee and one’s own Federal Agency or the Postal Service — it is also as against another agency: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management who attempts to subvert, deny and otherwise place obstacles in obtaining an “approval” for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

That is why the “interests at odds” needs to have an advocate — of an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.  Consult with an attorney who can help you attain the comity of interests, and to counter that entity which clearly is at odds with your interests.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Trains that have already left

What do we say about a person who is told that his train has already left the station, and that another will not take him to his destination until the day after, yet insists upon remaining on the platform hoping that, somehow, another will arrive, perhaps in the next hour or so?  Is it stubbornness?  Or, perhaps a denying of reality?  Or a refusal to admit to one’s mistake in arriving too late?

The metaphor of the train having already left the station, of course, is a universally well-known one, and it is especially poignant when emphasizing the need to rearrange, reorganize and rethink one’s future plans.

So the conversation goes: “Well, I am thinking about doing …”  And the response is: “That train has already left the station.”  Meaning: You may have had the opportunity to do what you are thinking of doing, perhaps 5 years ago, or maybe even yesterday; but such an opportunity has already come and gone, and you cannot change the fact that the proverbial “train” has already left without you.  The response might be: “Yes, but I can catch the next train.”  To which, the counter to the response is often: “That may be, but understand that it will be a different train, and not the same one that you missed.”

How far can one go in utilizing a metaphor or an analogy?  At some point, the metaphor can become lost within layers of double and triple “meanings”, and the conversation has to get back to the reality of the present and actual situation.  And so the return back to basics: A 40-year old man says, “I think I will try out for the Orioles as a short-stop.”  The friend may give a wry smile and say, “Yes, but you know that that train has already left the station”.

We all know what that means: While the Orioles sorely may need a good short-stop, a person who is 40 years old will not be able to keep up with the rigor of being a professional baseball player.  It is simply not realistic.

Likewise, for Federal and Postal employees 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 is often difficult to discern the “reality” of one’s situation in making a proper determination for one’s future.  Is it realistic to think that one will be able to return to work?  How long will the Federal Agency or the Postal Service show patience in taking so much time off? Is it possible that the Federal Agency or the Postal Service will be able to accommodate my medical condition?

Trains that leave the station on time are often ones that are forever gone; and the one that is ultimately entered to travel to the destination one has chosen, may well get you to where you want to go, but it will nevertheless be a different train, a distinctly separate destination, and even the rider will be another person.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The difficult good-bye

It is always difficult to say good-bye.  Whether of a long duration, or with a quick ending to an already fast-deteriorating relationship, the good-bye that brings sorrow, tears and a sense of unease is the one that once was never thought of.

Separating from loved ones; the end of a stay that may have begun with trepidation, hesitation or even loathing, but which turned out to be an embracing of past memories forgotten, revitalizing conversations and enlivening moments of collective reflections; or even of a chance encounter with someone, or with the lengthy last moments with a bedridden relative who wants the warmth of human contact nearby before departing into the netherworld through gates of wandering souls.

Whatever the circumstances, the good-byes we fear, the ones we think will be a relief, and even those that turned out to end merely with a half-hearted wave of the hand — it is the difficult good-bye that echoes within the hollow of one’s mind, squeezing between schedules full and memories touching upon a conscience that will not abide.

Careers have good-byes, as well, and not just between people; for it is the career that defines so much of who we are.  It is never just the “what do you do for a living” part of it, but the title that comes with it, the identity that is attached to it, the camaraderie that accompanies it and the past memories that haunt one; these are the cementing tributaries that form one’s personhood.

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, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the difficult good-bye is the one that separates the Federal or Postal employee from the Federal Agency or the Postal Facility — not necessarily because of the circumstances compelled by the medical conditions themselves (although that is admittedly difficult enough), but often because the job itself was and has been an integral part of one’s life, livelihood and identity, and because any change in one’s routine is hard enough.

Filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is essentially saying good-bye to a good chunk of one’s daily routine of life and living — of spending about 50% or more of one’s life (including preparing for the day, commuting, doing work-related emails and similar activities, etc.) — and thus will be, even under the best of circumstances, a difficult separation and departing.

But always remember that the difficult good-bye is the one that retains an abiding meaningfulness within the souls of worthwhile characters, which then forms the seeds of hope for a future yet untold, as opposed to the half-hearted wave of the hand that dismisses so casually that we remember not even which hand with which we waved good-bye.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation on Federal Disability Retirement Claims: Proof

What constitutes it, and how do we learn of its sufficiency or relevance?

Take the following scenario: A group of boys are gathered together along with Billy, the “town bully”.  A discussion of sorts ensues — who is the toughest kid in town?  Some of the boys offer that “Dave” from across town is the meanest and toughest — a black belt in Hapkido, a state wrestling champion and a middle line backer for the high school football team.  Some others counter that Dave was once beaten up by Joe back in February, and doesn’t that “prove” that Joe is the toughest?

Then Billy suddenly stands up and everyone else becomes quiet.  He starts slowly and deliberatively pounding his right fist into the open palm of his left hand, and juts his prominent chin out in an intimidating manner, and says, “Okay!  Enough of this talk!  How ‘bout me?  Which of you weaklings says that I’m not the toughest guy in town?”

There are multiple sounds of gulps and fearful drops of sweat begin to trickle down the backs of each, and one of the other kids — a skinny little weasel with thick, black-rimmed glasses, suddenly shouts, “That’s proof enough for me!”  Following was a loud and unequivocal consensus of unanimous agreement.

In such a scenario, two things occurred: One — Billy “proved” that he was the toughest kid in town, and Two — all of the other kids took the lesson to heart that the proof of a physical presence and the threat presented was “sufficient” proof, as well as relevant as all get-go.

Thus are all of the components necessary to establishing verification of a propositional truth established: the town bully’s declarative utterance, backed by the force of a metaphorical persuasion (for one would argue that no overt coerciveness was used, but merely an innocent act of pounding one’s fist into the open palm of one’s other hand, and if asked whether Billy “threatened” anyone into declaring him as the toughest kid in town, he would and could innocently declare that there is “no proof” of any such accusation established or verified), and further reinforced by the scientific consensus of his peers and fellow students.

Proof was offered, considered, and accepted in full by a persuasive methodology of a succinct and effective form.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the systematic and methodological “proof” which must be gathered and presented to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in establishing the Federal or Postal employee’s eligibility and entitlement to Federal Disability Retirement benefits must, of course, be somewhat more sophisticated than the rudimentary — but effective — amassing of proof portrayed by Billy the Town Bully.

Of course, some of the characteristics may still be relevant — of what constitutes “effective” proof; of what works as “persuasive” proof; of what is comprised of proof itself.  But the difference is that, while proof that leads to an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management should last for the lifetime of the Federal or Postal employee, “proof” for the kids who agreed that Billy was the toughest guy in town lasted only so long as the threat presented kept everyone convinced.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement from OPM: Capturing youth

Advertising agencies know well their targeted audience; one need only sit and watch the news, flip through the various channels and recognize that yes, someone has more information about one’s particular household than one would like to share; otherwise, why does the age-group, the likely medical conditions being suffered and the problems statistically encountered seem to fit you?

Then, you search on the computer for a specific product, and suddenly ads appear throughout in the margins of the screen trying to entice you to similar genres of product lines.

Someone is “watching” you; information is being gathered throughout; and all along, it never was the onerous manner in which Orwell’s depiction in his famous novel, 1984 tried to describe and delineate.  No, in that novel, the totalitarian nature of the State imposed and prescribed television screens that had a 2-way capacity to watch and observe, and there were microphones planted in strategically-placed areas to listen in on conversations.  No such events were needed in modernity.

Instead, we go out and voluntarily buy the devices and bring them into our homes without any State or Regime ordering us to do so.  And all in the name of capturing youth.  Youth, by the looks of television and Internet ads, seems to be the prevailing impetus for all that everyone does in life.  Even the old people look young, younger, or seem to only want to be so.  Dating websites are no longer for the young and hopeful; no, they are for the old and retired, and capturing youth is the mainstay of today’s cultural focus.

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the compulsion of striving towards capturing youth; and whether the cosmetic products advertised or the need to “stay young” in order to enjoy life to its “fullest” (whatever that means), capturing youth is the favorite pastime of everyone everywhere nowadays.

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 employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the desire to “capture youth” has a slight twist – for, it is not just the want or motivation to harken back to a “time before” when one was young and carefree; rather, it is a need to capture those days when health was taken for granted and movement free of pain or inner turmoil was the daily routine that needed no greater thought.

Health is a blessing, but we don’t know it until it deteriorates; and medical conditions are a curse, and we just don’t think about it until the time is upon us to consider the future.

Filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, may not ultimately accomplish the goal of capturing youth, and thus may not be of much concern to those “watching you”, but for the unique individual that is the “you” in the privacy of your home and inner reflections, it may be a first step towards securing a future that has become the darker secrets of fear and loathing.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Content

What do we mean when we distinguish between “content” as opposed to “context”?  Are the two always distinguishable, and if so, are there any features or characteristics that make inseparability a potential difficulty?

We have all heard the famous phrase from King’s speech about being judged by the “content” of one’s character, as opposed to the “color” of one’s skin – a deviation of sorts from the more customary reference to the distinction made between appearance and reality, form versus substance, or even of spiritual versus material (although, as to the latter, one will often hear the metaphysical argument that it is the spiritual which is the “real” reality, and that the material is merely that fleeting, temporal existence that lasts for only a limited time).

Can the two truly be separated so cleanly as to allow for harmless independence – or, like the Siamese twins that share a vital organ, would any attempt necessarily devastate both?  For, isn’t it the very appearance of a thing that attracts and allows for an investigation further into the inner depths of the thing attracted towards?  Doesn’t context always matter when looking into the content of a thing, whether it is an incident, a conversation or a person of whom one is interested in committing to for a lifetime of relational considerations?

We often like to make such grandiose claims of bifurcating distinctions, when in fact the reality of the matter is that both are needed in order to complete the picture of the whole.

One may argue, of course, that content nevertheless is “more important” than context, or that substance by definition is of greater consequence than appearance, and by fiat of ascribed significance, one often argues that the former is necessary but perhaps not sufficient without the latter, whereas the latter is not unnecessary, but nevertheless cannot be made without unless one wants to walk about through life with a missing leg or a part of one’s soul left behind.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, always remember that – in preparing the SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability – the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is looking for both content and context, and thus must one always be wary and cautious about the implementation of both.

SF 3112A is a trick form.  The questions seem simple enough, but what is put in there; the legal consequences of what medical conditions are included; the result of failing to include certain other conditions that may later be of greater consequence; these, and many more pitfalls, obstacles and unknown legal impact that may or may not be made aware of – well, OPM is not going to tell you beforehand, or help you out, and will indeed judge the Federal Disability Retirement application based upon the content of what is included, and not by the “color” of contextually missing information.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire