OPM Disability Retirement: The Emperor’s New Clothes

It is one of those stories / folklores which transcends time, and a quick look at “sources” (yes, ashamedly, an internet search on “Wikipedia” reveals much) shows that the story possesses derivations and deviations from other countries and cultures, establishing that every profound theme has been recognized by a multiplicity of times and civilizations, to wit: vanity; con-artists; a child’s innocence; the sin of self-importance, etc.

That such themes cross over many cultures attests to their universality; and the lesson to be learned is not mere hyperbole, for we have found ourselves (if we are to be open and honest) in metaphorical circumstances similar to the story’s moral lessons.

In modernity, the folklore can be of greater instructive relevance than in any other time; for, to engage in the insularity of social media without a concomitant “reality check” against the objective world, can feed into one’s vanity and establish a type of insulated verification without regard to reality.

In simple terms, we can fool ourselves by engaging in a protected cycle of like-minded people.  That is why there are so many “romance scams” on the internet — of lonely people being scammed out of their life savings, all by stroking one’s vanity that love can be discovered through mere words on a blank screen.

What is the lesson here for Federal employees and Postal Service workers who suffer from a medical condition?  That there are no “new clothes”, but merely old ones — no new or magical solutions, but the age-old one of mortality.  People’s health can deteriorate, and we cannot think that you can just go on like you were in your twenties, or even thirties.  Sometimes, one’s health deteriorates, and you do, in fact, have to go out and try on “new clothes” — like filing for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS and thinking about preserving your health by going into another line of work.

Contact a FERS Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider whether the Emperor’s old clothes may not need a further fitting by a tailor who specializes in Federal Medical Retirement Law.

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.

 

FERS Medical Disability Retirement: The Reasons Given

How did we learn how to give the reasons given?

We often meander through life doing the things which we do, not because we have analyzed or assessed those things we do, but because of habit and convenience of monotonous refrain.

Did you actually ever learn how to prepare, formulate and provide a “reason”?  Or, perhaps you came from a family where your parents were too busy to provide the proper “reasons”, which is the basis of forming the “process” of adequate “reasoning”?

Did your parents say things like, “Just because…”.  Or — “I don’t know; go ask your mom.”  Or even: “Don’t bother me with your questions!”

Furthermore, if you went to college, were the classes mostly a drone of lectures, or were you subjected to the Socratic method of questions-building-upon-questions in order to doggedly require the fine-tuning of the reasons given?

And, as you entered the Federal workforce, how much of your work is merely based upon the attitude of, “This is done this way because it is the way it has always been done”, or do you have some creative leeway for your own input?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must contemplate preparing an effective OPM Disability Retirement application under FERS because of a medical condition which will not go away, preparing such a disability application must by necessity involve reasons given which must address both the “things which have always been done” as well as the uniqueness of your particular situation.

In a Federal Disability Retirement application which has any chance for an approval at all, the reasons given to justify your FERS Federal Disability application must include a sufficient legal basis in order to successfully persuade the U.S. Office of Personnel Management as to your eligibility.

Contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to ensure that the reasons given meet that sufficiency test, and not be denied because your reasons given are essentially the age-old failing attempt of, “Because I said so”.

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.

 

FERS Disability Retirement Help: The Next Move

What thoughts are connoted from such a phrase?  For most, it is perhaps the penultimate game of the Western world — Chess.  Or, if you have been exposed to Eastern or Oriental influences, the game of Go.  Perhaps neither — and the phrase, “the next move”, may evoke thoughts of a basketball player or some other sport which requires a “next move”.

Back to chess — for, as it is played by slow and deliberate increments of moving pieces on a board, there is always a “next move”, until there is not.  As well, in the game of Go, white and black pieces are set upon a board, each player attempting to make a double-“eye” in order to secure their vulnerabilities, until there is no more room to protect.  Often, our lives are reflected in the metaphor of such board games, whether of chess or of Go.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits becomes a necessary next move, you may want to contact a lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Whether the next move is an initial application, or a response which must be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for a Denial of your Application for Federal Disability Retirement; or, from a second “Reconsideration Denial” resulting in a need to file an appeal to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board — contact an experienced attorney who is knowledgeable about the next move which must be taken.

For, whether in chess or a game of Go, or in filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, it is always important to make sure that the “next move” is the one which will advance your cause with a winning strategy.

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 Disability Retirement: Going It Alone

Perhaps the maverick wins, or dies while trying and is buried anonymously in an unmarked grave; or the soldier who leaves his platoon and attempts to go behind enemy lines to save his buddies; or in a city of millions, a lonely heart who yearns for mere company but is too shy to even try.

Going it alone is a lonely proposition; it invites a sense of isolation, separation, abandonment and irrelevance; for some, it is a mark of courage; and for others, a mere trifle of the fool.  Perhaps there are times when it is appropriate to “going it alone”; for the most part, however, in this day and age of expertise and specialization, it is necessary to consult the advice, counsel and guidance of knowledgeable sources.

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, going it alone is often an unwise and inadvisable approach in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Consult with a Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer and consider whether or not investing in your future is a worthwhile endeavor, and whether “Going it Alone” is an act resulting from an intelligent decision, or a fleeting thought best left to Shakespeare’s Fool.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Early Medical Retirement from Federal Government Employment: Rational Discourse

In the world of academia, whether as a student or a professor, the ivory-tower atmosphere tends to de-couple and de-link reality from perception.  There is, to begin with, “the world” and its events, causations, occurrences and peoples intertwined by engaging in the politics and activities of daily living; and then, there is our “perception” of such events, which — in their aggregate — is comprised of and by our backgrounds, our beliefs, our interpretive faculties and the paradigms from which we operate.

In college, the world within which one operates is a limited, protected, self-contained universe in which ideas, books, deadlines for term papers and testing for knowledge retained are all experienced through the tunnel vision and narrow prism of a fantasy-world created for rational discourse.  The fact is that the universe is comprised of much irrationality and phenomena otherwise unknown or not capable of explanation.

In a Kantian manner (uh-oh, here we go with the rational discourse prism), we bring to the world the belief that everything must have an explanation, all events must be able to be explained by a rational discourse — but reality hits us hard in the face, or upon the backside, whichever metaphor you prefer.  Perhaps that is what is meant by “growing up”.  For the cynic, the universe has become a jumble of irrationality; for the proverbial optimist, everything yet to be explained can simply be set aside for future revelation.  Somewhere in the middle is where most of us belong.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer form a medical condition, and where that medical condition betrays the fond memories of our youth when health was taken for granted and mortality was never even considered, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits may seem like an ugly choice.  In a world where rational discourse should prevail, the irrationality of a chronic medical condition seems to be an unfair event that requires explanation — or, at least a good defense.  We can question and puzzle; we can fret and worry; but in the end, the stark choices are there before us.  Whether, ultimately, there is a rational discourse that can adequately explain the medical conditions by which a person suffers — or not — is often besides the point.

Consult with an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS and begin the process of obtaining a Federal Disability Retirement annuity, and let the questions concerning rational discourse remain a mystery to be solved in some unknown days ahead.  Life is difficult enough to maneuver without worrying about one’s future, and getting a Federal Disability Retirement annuity at least softens the blow in a universe that often seems impervious to the private hells of individual troubles.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: Ghosts that haunt

Presumably, there are those that do not; for not all ghosts haunt; some merely wander through the houses of happy memories without a peep.  It is the ghosts that haunt that appear suddenly when things aren’t going so well, or when sorrow brings memories that once had been repressed, forgotten, and tidily stored away in the dusty shelves of memory banks where the lapping waves of avoided sadness once pervaded in the reality of dreams unfulfilled.

Do we all have them?  Do they walk the earth in silent steps because of events that would not allow for the soul to remain at peace?  Do they haunt because of a turmoil in the essence of a person’s Being, where trauma would not satisfy the yearning for solace for a troubled memory?  Or is it all just bosh; that Freud has replaced all such mythologies of past narratives and we can all rid the houses of haunting ghosts by psychoanalysis and therapeutic intervention?

We make gods of different disciplines, at various times, in a multitude of eras; yesterday, the gods traveled in mythologies of fanciful underworlds; today, we are left with materialism, where man is a god unto himself, with no mystery left to unravel.  But, whatever the source, the ghosts that haunt remain with us, and often it is the stresses of life that suddenly resuscitate from the entombed memories of forgotten catacombs.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, whether that medical condition is termed “physical”, “emotional” or “psychiatric”, which prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS is when the ghosts that haunt begin to debilitate and destroy.

Whether the source is from a trauma originating from one’s past, or from an accident unrelated to work — it does not matter.  The medical condition and the nexus to one’s capacity and ability to perform the essential elements of one’s position with the Federal Agency or the Postal Service is what must be proven; and of the ghosts that haunt — well, to remain with the Federal Agency or the Postal Service will surely not resolve the haunting, but it may provide a better place to deal with the ghosts by allowing for greater focus upon dealing with one’s health issues.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Implications

Merely putting a ‘thus’ or ‘therefore’ does not create the necessary nexus between the facts proffered, the evidence presented and the conclusion declared; implications by definition require some work on the part of the audience, as the bridge not explicitly apparent must by necessity mandate mental connections to be drawn from otherwise disparate fields of facts.

How far can the law be stretched?  For so-called “originalists”, it is allegedly only the plain meaning of the text itself that can be gleaned, without any further “interpretation” beyond what is “originally intended”.  But lawyers go beyond the central meaning of legal opinions all the time; it is the job of a good attorney to stretch the application beyond what is originally meant or intended; and it is up to the next judge before whom such argumentation is tested to place limits and boundaries when the proposed stretch has gone a bridge too far.

How far, for example, can the “Bruner Argument” be made in a Federal Disability Retirement case?  Can the fact of a separation based upon “excessive absences” be used to demand of OPM that the Bruner Presumption should be applied, especially when parallel facts clearly establish that during the same time period of taking exhaustive Sick Leave and excessive LWOP, the Federal or Postal employee had multiple doctor’s appointments and was medically advised not to go to work?  Of course, arguments can always be made — but the real point is, Can one make an effective and persuasive argument?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, those conclusions by implication need to be carefully crafted.  For, while you may see the bridges connecting the two or more land masses that are otherwise separated by the rivers and tributaries, it is up to the Federal employee applicant in an OPM Disability Retirement case to make explicit and obvious those implications that may otherwise be lost in the administrative morass of complexities inherent in every Federal Medical Disability Retirement case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS Medical Disability Lawyer

 

OPM Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: ‘For’ and ‘to’

Do we ever pick up on the subtleties of language’s intentionality, anymore?  Is there a difference with a distinction between the use of the prepositions ‘for’ as opposed to ‘to’?  And, even if intentionally and with deliberative meaning, one inserts one as opposed to the other, would the person for whom it is intended, or to whom it is addressed, catch the difference, or would he or she merely respond as if there was never any difference at all?

Say the person began with one preposition but stopped mid-sentence and corrected it, inserting the ‘other’; would the correction be noticed at all, and even if it was, would that make a difference?  Say, for instance, a person says to another, “I would like to show my appreciation to you,” as opposed to saying, “I would like to show my appreciation for you.”  Is there a difference?  Is there a subtle intentionality hidden – where the “to” is just slightly less personal than the “for”?

What if the person speaking does not believe in any differences between the two propositions – would that make a difference?  Or, conversely, what if the person speaking does know the difference, or believes he does, between the two, but the person being addressed does not; does that make a difference?  Is there, objectively, a difference between the two, and can it be identified, delineated, understood and explained?

When we say, for example, that X is giving a gift to Y – is that different from saying that X is giving a gift for Y?  Or that Sally has shown great empathy to Mary, as opposed to showing great empathy for Mary – can the subtle difference of intentionality be derived?

Language is a difficult tool to master, to begin with, and grammar was once the medium by which correctness of communication could be embraced.  Much of grammar has now been discarded, abandoned and forsaken, and with the detritus of residue left behind, the subtlety of language – both in its usage as well as in its reception – has been lost.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing a 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, almost all of the encounters with the Federal agency responsible for review and determination on a Federal Disability Retirement application – i.e., the U.S. Office of Personnel Management – will be wrought through impersonal “paper” transactions – submission of the Standard Forms (e.g., SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability) and medical narrative reports and treatment records, as well as any Legal Memorandum prepared to argue your case – will be through an impersonal communication via language known, language learned and language imparted.

Knowing the subtleties of language, and the correct approach, the context and content driven by legal precedents and argumentation are all an important part of the process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.  It may not have to get into the minutiae of the differentiation of prepositions like ‘for’ and ‘to’, but there is enough complexity in the language of such a strange frontier as Federal Disability Retirement Law so as to justify hiring an attorney who specializes in such administrative legal conundrums, whether to obtain a successful outcome or for attainment of one.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Attorney Representation Federal Disability Retirement: Quiet

Is “quiet” the same as silence?  Or, of lack of noise?  Is it a state of mind-body consonance, where the body can remain calm and unmoving, yet the mind remains racing with thoughts, and in that state of being, do we fool ourselves to think that the outer world will not impact the inner mind?  Or, in reverse order?

Quiet is that which we strive for, in a world where din is the normalcy of life.  Can medical conditions that betray that which we strive for be understood by those who do not experience it?

Consider Tinnitus – that condition where there is a constant “sound”, whether of ringing, hissing or clanging that disrupts any consistency of a person’s striving for quiet, and this, despite everyone else in the “objective” world being quite oblivious to the “hearing” of such sounds.  Or, of the person who is deaf or progressively losing one’s acoustic acuity – can the rest of the world understand such a state of reality?

We assume, as we operate throughout the world on a daily basis, that because others appear to act in similar ways, that their inner beings and states of minds are similarly situated.  To “think alike” is to remain comfortable; and to attain “quiet” is not just to avoid the constant rush of living, but to reach a plateau where life is consistent, predictable and somewhat boring.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who experience the disquietude of a medical condition, where a combination of multiple factors come to the fore: Of a medical condition that prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional duties; of “noises” from one’s agency, supervisors and managers of deficiencies in performance, attendance or quota goals; of being placed upon a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP); of receiving a “warning” memorandum concerning one’s use of leave, whether Sick, Annual or LWOP; of harassment even when one has invoked FMLA rights; or of the step just prior to the last one – a proposed termination, then a termination; it may be time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be ultimately submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

“Quiet” is not just a state of how things are in one’s home; one can lose that goal of quiet by bringing home the stresses of work’s harassment and adversarial environment, and it doesn’t have to be an actual medical condition such as Tinnitus or progressive deafness – although those may also be a qualifying basis upon which to file a Federal Disability Retirement application – but multiple other medical conditions, as well, that result in the disquiet of robbing one’s quiet.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Benefits: ‘Can’ and ‘Have to’

The category of the latter has diminished in recent years, as the general populace has mistakenly misinterpreted the distinctive definitions of liberty and freedom, and reassigned meanings as license and anarchy.  The blank column of the former concept has come to be full, despite the reality of the economic downturn and the shift into a global economy that, we are told, is an inevitable consequence of human progress.

We were taught that the march of progress required the destruction of the American West, where a way of life needed to be trampled upon and destroyed in the name of advancement and civilization; that each step of innovation and progressive paradigms constitute an almost Hegelian fatefulness, and resistance is merely an act of futility within the aggregation of the Leviathan called “Progress”.  The modern parlance consists in the acceptance of every innovation of technology, to the extent that Orwell’s dystopian premonitions have been surpassed by a reality now accepted as mundane and commonplace, and we fail to realize that his magnum opus of a totalitarian future could have been heeded, but now is merely embraced with a yawn and barely a glance backward.

The more that society comes to believe in that which we ‘can’, as opposed to the obligatory mandate of ‘have to’, the less likely is there of a resistance to authority.  And, until the police raid in the middle of the night or the unquestioned stop and search on a highway where others just whiz by without puzzlement or curiosity, is experienced personally by a given individual, the onerous nature of laws passed in the name of safety, security and preventative measures, will be merely a conceptual haze masked by an obscure hypothetical.

Instead, we live day-to-day in the conundrum of being told that we ‘can’ do what we want, desire and fantasize about, and there is little that we ‘have to’ do.  Thus do infidelity and divorces occur; of abandonment of family ties based upon tropes of scintillating sensations; and goals set aside in the namesake of present pleasures.

There is a category of individuals, however, where the luxury of ‘can’ cannot be replaced by mere want of ‘have to’ – a person with a medical condition.  For Federal and 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 ‘can’ once relied upon transforms into an inability.

Once the inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position becomes a reality, then the ‘have to’ is finally realized – of preparing, formulating and filing an effective 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.  Do not let the muddle of incessant trope involving ‘can’ become confused with ‘have to’ – for, when one comes to a point of ‘must’, it is time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Employee Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire