OPM Disability Retirement: Return to Who I Am

We all take on different roles — whether as a parent, a husband, a wife; of assuming the role each day of a supervisor, a worker, a doctor, lawyer, etc. The underlying “substratum” of the “I” is presumed to remain the same throughout, but there may be a difference in the character posed, the personality posited or the tone, tonality and tenor of a voice, inflection, the way you talk, etc.

Perhaps, on a “Take your child to work day” you bring along your son or daughter and he or she watches you work in a particular role. Afterwards, does the child think to himself — or express him or herself to you or some third person — and say: “Gee, Mom [or Dad] sure acts differently at the office.”

Actors and actresses take on a “double-role” of sorts, don’t they? They not only have to take on the role of a character, whether in a play or a part in a filmed venue, but moreover, to “become” someone other than the person Who I Am.

Is there a difference between “Assuming the role of an Accountant” and “Playing the role of an Accountant”? Certainly, the former must have some credentials — perhaps as a C.P.A. or some “financial consultant certificate”, or some degree in accounting — whereas the latter only has to “act like” he or she has merited such a status. And the clients who come to the former — they are presumably “real” people whose financial problems or quandaries are “real” as well, whereas in the “acting’ role, they are not real, per se, but are also assuming the role of a part for the sake of an audience.

In either and both cases — whether of being “real” or “acting” in a role — the person to whom one “returns to” is someone who is the substratum: For the child, it is “Mommy” or “Daddy”; for the spouse, it is the husband or wife who “went-to-work-and-is-now-home”; and for the life-long friend from childhood days, it may be “Oh, that’s Dan who works as such-and-such, but who is good ol’ Dan always and forever.” But whatever role one assumes in life, whenever he or she returns to that person “Who I am”, does he or she ever return as the same person, or is there always a slight difference?

For, whatever the experience encountered in the “role” one plays, doesn’t it always change the person such that the person to whom one returns to can never be quite the same as before?

That is what happens with the Federal or Postal employee who needs to file for FERS Disability Retirement benefits — Yes, the point of trying to overcome a medical condition is so that one can “return to who I am”; but in reality, that will never happen, precisely because the medical condition and the experience of enduring the medical condition has changed the person forever.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: The Task Ahead

We all talk in those terms, don’t we?  And when the future is no longer referred to, we begin to worry; for it is the notion of a future that keeps us alive in the present, while the past is merely a portrait of who we were and what made us today.  A person without a history is an enigma; of what we are doing presently informs others of where we are going; and of future plans — well, that reveals of character, ambitions and the motivations of “what” and “who”.

When two people meet for the first time, it is commonplace to inquire as to the other’s past.  Why is that important?  Do we glean from a person’s previous experiences the type of “character” one has?  Of the places a person has been to; of his or her upbringing; of the hardships and trials one has endured; of the relationships one has been entangled in; and of the schools attended, the education received, etc. — are these, in their aggregate, what reveals the “make-up” of a person?

Can one sweep one’s past aside and simply declare, “I have no past and nor do I want to discuss it.  However, let me tell you of my future plans — of the task ahead.”  Why wouldn’t that be acceptable?  Is it because anyone can say anything about the future yet to be done, and it is the past which remains the telltale sign of a person’s true intentions and motivations — that is, the sincerity of one’s declarations?

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 task ahead becomes clearer each day as one’s medical condition worsens: Filing for Federal Disability Retirement looms as a greater and nearer necessity.

Does the past matter?  Yes — as to the deteriorating aspect and its impact upon one’s present circumstances.  Does the present have any relevance?  Yes, to the extent of one’s current medical issues and the nexus to one’s ability and capacity to perform the essential elements of one’s job.  And what of the task ahead?  That is the true test — and for that, you should consult with an attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law in order to prepare the most effective application for the task ahead: to formulate a strategy in order to pass muster with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Medical Retirement from OPM: The Fun of It All

Is that the point?  Do we live because there is a balancing of accounts, and so long as the right side of the ledger has enough checkmarks on the “leisure” side of life, where fun, joy, entertainment and self-satisfaction retain more fulfillment than on the left side (i.e., where work, drudgery, misery and repetitive monotony are recognized) — then, it is all “worth it”?

Do we continue on because of the “fun of it all”, or do most of us merely endure life, barely acknowledging the futility of our efforts and the inevitable melancholy of our lives, paused and interrupted only by the temporary suspension by sleep or daydreams?

We whisper our fantasies: “Oh, wouldn’t it be nice if…”.  It is the “Ifs” of life that transport ourselves from the reality of our condition into transferences of fantasies where for a brief moment a virtual reality replaces the starkness of present circumstances.  “If only I had a million dollars” (although, in this day and age, with inflation and the monetary devaluation of purchase power combined with the exponential increase of modern life’s consumer appetites, such a paltry amount barely makes a difference, anymore); “If only I had done X when I was younger”; “If only I had invested in such-and-such stocks”; “If only …”.

Like the overused reference to Sisyphus and the rolling boulder that never ceases, the toil that forever must be embraced and the daily grind that always remains, the fun of it all was always a misshapen goal that was never to be. Obligations in this society are no longer recognized; duties are easily abandoned; there remains only the barrenness of an isolated existence.  Where was “the fun of it all”?

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, it may be time to prepare, formulate and submit an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Consult with an Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.  For, even if one’s Federal or Postal career was never sought based upon the illusion that life and a career should be pursued for the “fun of it all”, if the medical condition has stripped away even the illusion one once possessed, then it is time to seek a remedy for a replacement illusion.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal & Postal Workers: Faulty Choices

Of course, we all make them; the issue is one of containment, not of avoiding them altogether.  For, the corollary can be equally faulty:  Of indecision until and unless all conditions for perfection can be met.  In other words, the thwarted view that waits until everything is perfect: The perfect life; the perfect marriage; the perfect career; the perfect choice.  To wait for perfection is in and of itself an imperfect choice based upon a faulty choice; it is to let an unattainable end dominate an otherwise attainable goal.

But at what point does one determine that?  Yes, while not all of the information has been ascertained, and perhaps not all conditions met; nevertheless, will we proceed in doing X as opposed to Not-X and take the chance?  That is where “judgment” comes into play — of having the wisdom to make decisions based upon the available resources tapped.

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, faulty choices at the beginning of the process can have negative consequences foreseen and unforeseen.  The key is to limit the faulty choices, and the option to seek counsel and guidance is often the first choice in reaching an attainable goal of success.

In pursuing Federal Disability Retirement benefits, seek the advice and counsel of an experienced attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law; to do so is to limit faulty choices, and that is often the key for a successful outcome in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Damaged Goods

What do we do when first we realize the defects revealed?  If by mail order, we ship it back; if by direct purchase, we confront the storekeeper and point out the lessened nature of perfection and demand either a reduction to the original price or a full return upon the item purchased.

Damaged goods come in various forms: of complete uselessness; of partial defects that matter not; of a lifespan severely shortened; or of irreparable imperfection such that it cannot be used at all.  And of people who view others in a similar way — how do we judge them and what do we think?  Is it “right” for a person to view another as an object — as “damaged goods” — or must we always look beyond the person as a mere commodity and speak in terms of empathetic subjects reaching beyond the surface of a person’s value as nothing more than the price of a car or of an apple to be devoured?

Yet, that is how a person is looked upon, is he not — as in a Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who begins to 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 his or her Federal or Postal job.  The Federal Agency or the Postal Service begins to view the Federal or Postal employee in terms of “productivity”, of “value” to the Agency or Postal unit — in other words, as a mere object to be assessed as a commodity, and whether the “damaged goods” should be sent back, returned, or replaced with a full refund.

When that perspective is asserted by one’s Federal Agency or the Postal Service, it is time to prepare, formulate and file an effective FERS Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  For, in the end, the damaged goods must be replaced with a refund or a return, lest we recognize humanity’s incapability of recognizing the difference between commodities and people.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Preparing for the unknown

How does one prepare for the unknown?  If the very basis of preparation is to prepare for something, how can you then engage in that activity if X is an anomaly, a conundrum, a mystery yet to be uncovered and revealed such that the prior stage of preparing for it can be accomplished?  Is there a necessity for the pre-preparation stage?  Does one have to prepare in order to prepare to perform the actual act of engaging the substance of that which must be prepared for?

Certainly, learning about a subject — reading, researching, analyzing and evaluating — prior to performing acts which constitute “preparation” is an important component, but how many people have time to do such things?

Nowadays, if a person is asked whether they can “do X”, we just whip out our Smartphone, Google it and watch a You-Tube video and declare, “Yeah, I can do that.”  Is that what self-appointed lawyers do, these days — winging it by quickly reading some summarization of an article, then head into court and stand before a judge and make motions, argue cases, etc.?

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, preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management may well become a necessity.

It is the “preparing” part of the entire process which may be the lynchpin of success or failure.  Yes, you can read various articles (including this writer’s many pointers, legal articles and the like), but always understand that each case is unique — as is yours — and legal guidance based upon the individual circumstances of a particular case is very important in preparing for the unknown.

The “unknown” is the Federal Disability Retirement process, the administrative venue and the bureaucratic morass that encompasses the entirety of Federal Disability Retirement Law, and while no lawyer should contend that he or she knows “everything” about a subject, an experienced lawyer can certainly provide for valuable “pre-preparation”, as well as the preparation and the substantive work on formulating and finalizing that which is yet unknown, but ready to be revealed, uncovered, and refined into a Federal Disability Retirement application that stands a good chance of challenging the unknown.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Perfection in the details

Why is it that we never question the statement, “Well, this is an imperfect world; but in a perfect world…”.  What is “perfection” and who defines it?  Doesn’t it all depend upon the details within the definition?  Is a “perfect world” the same for everyone, across all cultural lines and within every community?  Or does it vary depending upon one’s background and upbringing?  Would a picture of a “perfect world” be the same, say, for a pious, religious zealot as opposed to a hedonist?  How about the contrast between a Libertarian and an Authoritarian?

So, in a recent description about an individual who was known to have held conservative religious beliefs, but who concurrently believed in weapons production and advanced technological weaponry, the question was asked by a student whether there was a contradiction between faith held and work engaged, and the answer was: “Well, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need any such weapons; but this being an imperfect world, we would have to defend ourselves.”

To this answer, of course, there appeared no “follow-up” question; but shouldn’t there have been?  Such as: What is your vision and definition of a “perfect world”?  Well, one might answer, a perfect world is one in which everyone is allowed to be free to do what he or she wants without fear of retaliation or offense.  But is that a viable vision of a perfect world?

As freedom and liberty is never a license for unfettered actions, so a Hobbesian State of Nature cannot be the foundation for perfection.

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 lack of perfection achieved is already self-evident: One’s health is a testament to that; and the manner in which the Federal Agency or the Postal unit has reacted to one’s health, is also an indicator of an imperfect world.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management may not be the perfect solution for the circumstances one is in, but then, we neither live in a perfect world nor must contend with a semblance of one.  Perfection matters in the details of every endeavor, and it is the striving towards perfection that matters, not in the achievement of it.

In preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, always remember that there is never a “perfect case” where OPM will unquestionably approve it; but in preparing an application for Federal Disability Retirement, it is wise to seek the counsel of an experienced attorney in order to reach a level of perfection where, in retrospective regret, one does not have to needlessly say, “Well, in a perfect world…”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire