OPM Disability Retirement Benefits: The Players

Whether in a play, on a sports team or surrounding a poker table, they comprise the gamut of those involved, whether of centrality, marginal, peripheral, “somewhat”, etc.

In life generally, we have a “role” to play.  Some begin to find such terms to imply inauthenticity; but in any household, in any company, in any game, there are central characters, role players, bit-players and even “the boss”.  Or, in a family — of a father, a husband, the primary earner, etc.

It is always good to know “the players” in any circumstance, because they are the ones who must be dealt with, understood, tolerated, placed in the properly assigned status, etc.  Characters in plays, books, short stories, etc., likewise encompass the universe of the players involved.

In a Federal Disability Retirement case, there are also “the players” — the doctors (who will support a case); the agency’s Human Resources personnel; the Initial decider at OPM; the potential decider at the Reconsideration level; the Administrative Judge at the MSPB — all are players, whether currently inactive or potentially involved.  And your lawyer — a specialist in Federal Disability Retirement Law — should be one of the central players.

Contact a disability attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin to round up the cast of characters who will play an integral role in your quest for OPM Disability Retirement Law — the “players” who will be playing in the field of Federal Disability Retirement.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Out of Love

There can be a duality of meanings, of course — of doing X “out of love” or “being” out of love.  The two are opposites, or of conceptual antonyms.  What does it mean to act “out of love” — in the first sense of the phrase?  Does being compensated for doing something necessarily and immediately cancel any notion that one is doing it with the pure motive “out of love”?

Take the following hypothetical: A man foregoes a career and all advancement opportunities to take care of his sick uncle.  He does this without complaining, always with tenderness and care.  The neighbors are full of empathetic praise, saying things like, “Oh, what a wonderful and caring young man,” and “He is so devoted to him!”

Later, in the gossip columns of life’s entreaties, there is a footnoted notation that the young man inherited a large sum of money, and that the source from which the inheritance came had a contingency of requirements: In order for the young man to receive the money, he “had to” take care of his uncle and never complain about it. Do such revelations extinguish the previous praise showered?

And of the “other” conceptual bundle: How does one fall “out of love” — as if love is something we mistakenly fall into, to begin with, like a cavernous hole in the middle of our paths that we accidentally stumble into and, still later in the relationship, we similarly “fall out of” in the same manner?  Do conceptual confusions as applied to individuals have any meaning when universalized?

For instance, can a greater society do things “out of love” for its citizenry, and retract them just as quickly because it has later fallen “out of love”?  Politics aside, the wide pendulum of policymakers tinkering with an employee’s benefits can make a difference for the individuals impacted.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that it becomes necessary to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether “out of love” in the first sense, or from the perspective of the Federal Agency or the Postal Service who once thought of the Disability Retirement applicant as the paragon of the great worker but has now fallen “out of love” in the second sense — the necessity of filing for FERS Disability Retirement is a reality that must be faced.

We all have to contend with misapprehensions of motives and intentions; of gossip and people talking about the personal affairs of others whom they barely know. Supervisors, coworkers, and all of those who make judgments in an offhanded way — that is not what should be the primary concern of the Federal or Postal employee who files for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Instead, whatever the motivation — of a system which allows for an early medical retirement “out of love” or of a Federal Agency or Postal Service which has fallen “out of love” with an employee — the primary focus should be upon one’s own health, and to take care of one’s self “out of love”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The historical data

How much historical data is too much?  Is there a correlation between “too much” and “loss of interest”? In other words, when a history book is written, does the interest shown by the reader begin to wane when a certain point of quantitative overload begins to overwhelm?  Further, does the audience for whom the historical data is written depend upon the extent given?

Certainly, “popular” historical narratives provide “juicier” content than more “serious” biographies, where the salacious aspects of a person’s life or of an event are put to the fore, as opposed to relegating them to footnotes or in those “fine print” pages at the back of the book.

If, for example, data is compiled for an internal study for the “Historical Society of X”, then certain detailed information without limitations might be included — i.e. how many times this or that civilization went to war, went to the bathroom daily, ate one kind of fruit as opposed to another, etc. But if that “study” were to be made into a biography of an indigenous tribe, to be sold to the general public, it might leave out certain of the more uninteresting data, or placed in footnotes or “background notes” at the back of the book.

At what point does a historical narrative become “tedious”?  Again, is there a correlation between “interest shown/sparked/waning/losing” and the extent of data provided?  Is there a “qualitative” difference as opposed to sheer quantitative overload?

These issues are important to keep in mind when a Federal or Postal employee begins to write one’s narrative in response to questions posed on SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability.  For, there is always a tendency on the part of the Federal or Postal applicant to have this unquenchable desire to “tell one’s story”, as opposed to answering the question on SF 3112A in as precise, concise and incisive manner.

At times, some amount of historical background may be relevant and somewhat necessary, but unlike “internal studies” that have no cognizable consequences in providing “too much” information, an overabundance of irrelevant data provided may have a duality of negative results: First, it may take away from, and diminish, the “main point” of the narrative, and Second, you may be providing information that is inadvertently harmful to one’s OPM Disability Retirement case without intending to.

Remember always in a Federal Disability Retirement case, that the eyes that once see cannot be blinded after the fact, and it is better to provide information as a supplemental means in a Federal Disability Retirement case, than to have to explain, correct and amend after a denial is received from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal OPM Disability Retirement: Hope for tomorrow

“Tomorrow”, as a word written today, pointing to a dimension beyond; to a vantage and perspective not yet realized, and forever to be referenced by a future date yet unknown.  When read tomorrow, it leads to the next day; and when looked upon the next day, to the following day again; and in this eternal sequence of tomorrows, whether written today, tomorrow or the next day, it forever reminds us that hope lies not in the morass of today’s problems, but in the change of things yet to be realized.

Yes, yes — we all recognize the scoffing that often surrounded the political banner of that famous phrase, “hope and change” — but that is merely because the potency of words, concepts and formulated paradigms lose their efficacy once they are used within a public arena that turns into a campaign slogan. Hope is always for tomorrow; for, without tomorrow, hope remains fallow as the desert that once promised a fertile reserve but never realized the rivers that had dried up because of the changes of the subterranean shifts in tectonic quakes that others failed to predict.

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 hope for tomorrow will often include the preparation, formulation and filing of 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 and CSRS Offset.

Today is already filled with the overwhelming problems that beset any Federal or Postal employee with a medical condition; it is for tomorrow that an application for Federal Disability Retirement must be considered, and that is the ray of hope that includes tomorrow, and the day after, in preparing and formulating an effective Federal Disability Retirement application — today.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The Structural Problem

It is what we never want to hear, and fear most:  that statement from an “expert” who informs us that it is a “structural problem“.  Not cosmetic; not superficial; not unessential; but that word, concept and image which goes to the very heart and foundation of the damage:  the center of the universe.  When the damage occurs there, and the rotting vein of progressive deterioration touches upon that central nervous system, then it becomes “structural”, and all of the rest may come falling down in a sudden dustheap of crumpled carcasses.

So long as it involves only the peripheral concerns, we keep telling ourselves that it doesn’t matter, that the foundation is still solid and they are mere extremities of lesser concern.  We do that with pain and other irritants of life.  And with medical conditions that don’t double us over or completely debilitate us.  So long as there remains a semblance of structural integrity left, one can go on and continue without regard to the symptoms which become telltale signs of impending doom.

For the Federal employee and the U.S. Postal worker who has arrived at the point of finality where one can no longer just venture forward, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management becomes the best remaining option.

We wait because it is in the very nature and essence of procrastination that the inevitability of ignorance, neglect, disregard and sidestepping can delay the confrontation with that which we fear to know, refuse to acknowledge, and take comfort in detracting from the encounter with the truth of established verifiability.  As with science, the flat earth, and the view from a geocentric universe, no one wants to be told that there is a structural problem.

Too often, the Federal and Postal employee who finally comes to a point of needing to admit that preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is and has become a necessity because he or she has worked until the last straw was placed on the back of the proverbial camel.

Medical conditions announce harbingers of events to come, by symptoms calling for attention and attentiveness.  While the news from the architect that the problem is a “structural” one may not be welcome, it was always an indicator that the inevitable was on the fast-track of necessity and predictability; we just turned our heads aside in hopes of another day.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire