FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: Just Beyond

That is what makes you pause, yet unsure — the “just beyond”.  Maybe its a dream — but it is just beyond your grasp.  Perhaps the directions you were given — just beyond the next corner, just beyond the next town; or just beyond what even Google Maps can lead you to.

Or, in a Federal Disability Retirement case, it is the argument that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management makes in denying your Federal Disability application under the FERS system:  the insertion of a word here, an unfamiliar legal phrase there, always “just beyond” a suspicion as to whether they are correctly stating the legal criteria or the statutory authority cited in denying your case.

OPM systematically engages in such word-usage — of using phrases and inserting words which go “just beyond” the law, but in fact do not comply with the actual legal requirements.  And, as the individuals who make the decisions at OPM are themselves just beyond any accountability, they engage in such misuse and mis-application of the law with impunity, knowing very well that they will never have to answer for such mis-characterizations.

Thus, for example, does a denial of a Federal or Postal Disability retirement application often refer to the fact that “Social Security did not find you unable to be employed” — which may be true, but is a statement “just beyond” the laws governing a FERS Federal Disability Retirement application because what Social Security determines has absolutely no relevance to your FERS Disability Retirement application.

Or, OPM might say something like, “There is no evidence that your Agency could not have accommodated you beyond all possible means”.  Yes, but that is not the law; rather, the issue is whether your Agency could have “reasonably” accommodated you; not, whether you could have been accommodated beyond all possibilities within the universe of theoretical possibilities.

Again, OPM engages in legal jargon “just beyond” the boundaries of truth and integrity.  To make sure that OPM stays within the boundaries of statutory authority, contact a FERS Disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and always make sure that you apply the law not just beyond, but within.

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: Formality of Speech

What is the purpose of language?  Is it merely to be able to maneuver within and through this world — to be able to point to Object-X and declare, “I want that”; to issue commands; to engage in conversation; to argue a point?  Does it matter “how” one speaks, so long as the message is adequately conveyed or, is the formality of speech important?  Are there circumstances where formality is significant, even important, as opposed to the informal languages games which are bantered about among friends and intimate partners?

Does the language game of “Law”, for example, lend itself naturally, or even by necessity, to a semblance of formality, as opposed to the linguistic informality observed when a group of friends watch a football game?

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, you must understand that Law as Formality of Speech lends itself to a seriousness of tone — of application of the legal rulings; the mandate of “must” in statutory language; and the logical argumentation which expresses a tenor of authoritative commandments within a specific language apparatus.

It is the job of a FERS Disability Attorney to convey the formality of speech as a lawyer, and it is in the very content and context of such formality which often wins the day in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, before the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

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 Disability Retirement: The Inevitable Constancy of Change

Change is a constant.  If you have lived long enough, the slow and incremental changes all around us — in the political sphere; employment; personal lives; the inevitability becomes palpable, and sometimes of concern.

Seasons change (unless, perhaps, you are in Florida); but the cyclical rhythm of returning to warmth after a long spell of Winter’s dread is a welcomed change.  When change becomes a forethought to dread, there is an inkling that something is wrong.

There are obviously changes for the good: Of new friends or family members (excepting the visiting uncle who arrives unannounced and expects to stay for a few weeks which turns into months); a child or a grandchild; of newfound wealth; of good luck suddenly encountered, etc.  Then, of course, the changes which undermine and impact with negative results: Loss of any kind; a sudden death; a medical condition.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition as a result of the inevitable constancy of change, contact a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider whether or not the change to becoming a retiree might not be the best response to the change resulting from a medical condition.

For, if change is an inevitable constancy, why not turn the bad into a good, and render unto the inevitability the rhythmic cycle of a season yet to be, of a greater preference than the static state of now?

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 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

 

FERS Disability Retirement from the OPM: Chessboard of Life

Is there a difference between an “Eastern” and “Western” perspective of life?  Does the fact that we play one kind of game (Chess) while Eastern nations play another game (“Go”) give us any metaphorical insight into such differences?

The Game of Go uses the intersecting points on a line full of square spaces; on a similar-looking board (depending upon the size of the Go Board), Chess uses the square spaces themselves.  The Game of Go is a more “fluid” one, where the black and white stone pieces will fill the board at the intersecting lines, and thus can move up or down, sideways or diagonally, depending upon the initiation and response of the players to one another.

Chess, on the other hand, can only essentially move forward.  Yes, the pieces can move sideways (the knight, queen and rook, for example) and diagonally (the bishop & queen), but the object of the game is to reach the opponent’s farthest line of square spaces, whereas the Game of Go utilizes the entire board with equal value.

Do the two “games” tell us anything about the way in which we live?  Do we “view” life as a chessboard, as opposed to a Game of Go, and is there a difference in such ways where one can make a conceptual distinction between the two?

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 Chessboard of Life becomes a “match” between yourself and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

To “capture” their queen, you must maneuver your way past all of the threatening “pieces” of a Federal Disability Retirement application, and “checkmate” OPM with legal arguments and medical evidence that is persuasive enough.  Whether a different strategy as that applied in the Game of Go should be considered, depends upon the unique nature of your individual circumstances.

In either case, it is good to consult with a “Master” of either Go or of Chess — a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Serendipity

It is a chance or accidental event which turns out to be a momentous, joyful one; and while its occurrence may have been unexpected, it is not unwelcome after the event takes place or reveals itself, precisely because of the joy it brings.  Thus does a serendipitous event surprise us; for, one’s daily experience is that the opposite is true: chance occurrences, accidental events and unexpected moments normally result in negative consequences we want to avoid.

A sudden windfall; an unexpected visit from an old and dear friend; a surprise party held by everyone you actually like; these are all serendipitous events; but of their opposite, we come to expect: bad news about our kids; friends who disappoint; a career that doesn’t turn out to be what it promised; a life that didn’t fulfill the potentiality which others had expected.

So, is it the expectations left unfulfilled or the accidental nature of an occurrence which makes the difference?  For the former — how does one come to assess and judge expectations, of others or from ourselves?  Were they realistic, within reachable goals and planned with achievable milestones?  As to the latter — is it because of the “surprise” nature of a serendipitous event in combination with the joyous outcome that makes it “special”?  For, if it was accidental, but nevertheless expected, would it detract from the momentousness of the event?

Life is full of mundaneness and repetitive monotony, and a serendipitous event is something to hold with special smiles and hearty laughters precisely because of their accidental and unexpected natures; for, its very opposite — of a calamity which may also be accidental or unexpected — occurs often enough.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition turns into the opposite of a serendipitous event by preventing the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management should be carefully considered.

It is a long and complex administrative process, with many and varied bureaucratic pitfalls.  But in the end, when an approval from OPM is obtained, it may be declared a moment of serendipity — of that rare exception to the general rule of life, where misgivings are plentiful and momentous ones a rarity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: This fast-paced world

Even 2 – 3 year olds are seen with Smartphones maneuvering their way through Facebook; and while the old industrial towns where blue collar jobs were once thriving become ghost towns from closure, shut-downs and transference to foreign parts for cheaper wages and greater corporate profits, the once-idyllic panorama of life lived in still-shots of single frames, painted with a single flower wilting in a child’s hands is forever fading into the pastoral beauty of past lives no longer remembered.

This is a fast-paced world; unrelenting; unforgiving; unable to provide a modicum of sympathy.  Those in the thick of it pass everyone by; and while we give lip-service for the need to “reduce stress” and live a more “contemplative” life, the reality is that we have created a machine where no one knows how to turn the switch off, leaving aside trying to slow down the mechanism of this juggernaut called “society”.

Some few thrive on it; most dread the Mondays that follow; and the rest of us merely walk through like zombies and the living dead, mindlessly winding our way through this maze called “life”.  Some few of us are able to laugh it off; fend against the daily stresses; somehow survive the burdens that this fast-paced world places upon us.  We, all of us, are mere beasts of burden, now, caught in the trap of our own making, walking as Camus’ Sisyphus in the unrelenting struggle to push the boulder up the hill only to see it roll back down, and to begin each day anew to push it back up.

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, this fast-paced world may oftentimes appear to have changed gears into hyper-drive.  For, the medical condition merely slows down the individual; the rest of the world, including the Federal Agency or the Postal facility, merely continues on.

No one has time for illness or injury; that is why we must rely upon the available laws that favor one’s particular situation, and filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits is a pathway towards countering this fast-paced world which leaves so many behind.  Begin by consulting with an attorney who possesses the knowledge to apply the mechanisms already in place to obtain what is by legal right yours — and by doing so, to answer the perennial question of how one slows down in this fast-paced world where even the sick and injured are no longer cared for?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer Representation OPM Disability Retirement: Of who we are

Once, it was not a valid question; or, at least not one in which most people were concerned about, unless you were born “out of wedlock” or an orphan shuttered in some institutional hideaway relegated to be humble and taught to forever be thankful for even being alive.  Upon a time now gone, the name by which we were called, the reference to the parental lineage — “Oh, that’s Tom’s youngest” or “She’s Minerva’s middle-‘un” — was enough of an identifier, and we were satisfied with the parochial ways in which we saw ourselves.

Perhaps there were those unique circumstances — of a hushed past where secrets of a shamed love affair produced that “unwanted child” who was brought up by an eccentric aunt who neither cared about public opinion nor made judgments about the grown-up acts and misdeeds now forgotten long ago; but of the rest and the mediocre lot of us, we were just content to remain in quiet anonymity and not invite the ire of societal condemnations.

Now, of course, we do a swab-test, purchase a “kit” and decipher the mysterious genealogy of that twisted image we grasped on to from our school days when science was a muddle and instruction was something to survive — of that “DNA” conundrum that has pervaded the lexicon of our daily lives.  And yet, we still rely upon human frailty — we trust in whatever test results are determined.

If it shows that we are more Irish than of Slavic descent, we abandon our belief in the latter and rush to the nearest pub to declare our ancestry; and if the little molecules within the cellular structure of our essence says that we are distantly related to Abraham Lincoln, why, we puff out our chests and say, “Imagine that!”

All the while, we pay homage without questioning the accuracy of some lab in some corner of the world that says that physical evidence is irrefutable; that statistical analysis cannot be doubted; and that the Age of Science cannot deter the memories handed down from forefathers who created myths and folklores that allowed for the imagination to soar.  Of who we are has become a clinical analysis enslaved by what we are told.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition is beginning to impact, prevent or otherwise impede performing the essential elements of one’s Federal position or Postal Craft, Supervisory role or administrative, physical or cognitive-intensive labor, the concept of who we are is often intimately bundled deep within the psychological recesses of what we do.  But that is a false paradigm.

If you are willing to sacrifice your health upon the altar of what you do, it reflects poorly upon who you are.

In the end, the benefit of a Federal Disability Retirement is not determined by the amount of annuity to be received, but by the priorities placed — your health, which indicates the essence of who you are, as opposed to a DNA analysis of what your cellular structure reveals, and least of all by what you do.  Of who we are is determined more by the wise decisions we make than in the work of the world as determined by others.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirements: The predetermined, “Let’s discuss it”

You can often tell from the eyes and the mannerism whether the opening prelude is meaningful, or predetermined to merely manipulate to an intended end.  The opening interlude which allows for the conduit of engagement:  “Let’s discuss it”; does it next encapsulate an ear which listens, or pauses which allow for conveyance of communication – or merely a diatribe of invective meant to dissuade and demean?

It is a rare character, indeed, that states and means in a coalescence of sincerity; instead, the danger signs should be evident at the outset:  The end has already been predetermined; your words are merely allowed to provide a setting of appearance, or to give you the rope in order to coil it and hang yourself.

Beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing (or does that metaphor even apply, today?); there is rarely a cast of shadows without the darkness elongated, and it is indeed a rarity to find sincerity in an insincere world.  Discussion requires a prefatory contingency of openness to logical argumentation (or even emotional appeal), persuasion, dissuasive comportments, and a sense of listening.

Is there a fine line between that, and a preset paradigm of an already-established course?  Take the following hypothetical:  Some figure of authority – the “boss”, or a manager, supervisor, etc. – grants a forum for a “discussion” of the “issue” (whatever they may be), but during such an exchange it becomes readily apparent that the counterpart shows no signs of actual interest – the fidgeting, the proverbial “looking at the watch”, the furtive eyes, the yawn; all together, showing a complete disinterestedness in the process.

But something during the discussion sparks, and an unintended consequence (to paraphrase the well-worn American Lore from Adam Smith and the economic entrails of systematic chaos) suddenly rears its beautiful head; eyes sparkle; the head and chin tilt slightly back, and intelligence (which heretofore was merely a dark abyss of eternal vacuity) gleams in the eyes of the “boss”; “Now, that is an interesting proposal…” comes the refrain.

In such a scenario, was the fact that predetermination of outcome altered during the course of the foray, changed the entire episode into one which embraced a sincerity of motives?  Or, is it merely that the counterpart changed his or her mind, and “openness” to such an exchange was a farcical prelude to an otherwise meaningless exchange?  Does the mere fact of allowing for a discussion – an opportunity to voice one’s concerns or to “vent” through a diatribe of invectives – establish a sincerity of allowances, even if the original intent was otherwise left unstated?

Which brings us to the point of this exchange – for, in a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the thing that many Federal and Postal employees fail to realize, is that there is contained within the bureaucratic system of the administrative process, a procedure which essential does constitute a “Let’s discuss it” trigger.

For, that is precisely why there are multiple stages of the administrative process – of the “Initial Stage” in filing a CSRS or FERS Disability Retirement application; then, if rejected and denied at the First Stage, a second “opportunity” of a “Let’s discuss it”, represented by a “Reconsideration Stage”, where additional medical documentation and legal argumentation can be empowered; and, then again, a “Third Stage”, where the Federal or Postal employee may disagree with OPM’s determination, and file an appeal to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.  Additionally, there is even a Fourth Stage – of a Petition to a panel of MSPB Judges for a legal review of the process.

Such an Administrative Procedure reveals and establishes an aversion to what most people experience, in that there is a process of listening, appealing and persuading in a Federal Disability Retirement application – something which is rarely found in the world at large, where the refrain, “Let’s discuss it”, is normally anything more than a prelude to a predetermined course of action.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire  
Federal Disability Attorney

  

OPM Disability Retirement: Of things (which should be) hidden

Perhaps it is a moment of repose, when relaxation allows for an unflattering silhouette or an act with hands which reach for things not publicly accepted; or of an insight into the depths of a soul, better left concealed, congealing unexpectedly before one’s eyes despite best or better attempts to suppress or repress.

We all assume certain aspects of a person’s life, and when they appear not within the slice of images presented to the public eye, we do not take notice because the presumption remains throughout.  Thus do bathroom scenes remain irrelevant throughout most of the history of film, and have only made their debut as titillating artistry masked as prurient creativity encroaches in subtle increments upon our sensibilities (with the obvious exception, of course, of Hitchcock’s scene of the curtained shadow).

Somehow, despite our incessant clatter of protestations to the contrary, the privacy of our lives become exposed and elevated to a pedestal of a declarative rumination, like the child-actor who accepts the adoration of public applause in place of the denied love of a parent.  The lowest of our essence tends to congregate in bunches of time, place and people; perhaps, as like attracts like, and similarities of venturesome teleologies aggregate for symbiosis of common causes, so the ugliness of humanity seems always to find its way where innocence abounds and the naive output is counterbalanced by the depravity of so many soulless zombies.

So it is in the workplace, where the ugliness of human character tends to reveal itself.  But that we wish for privacy, and for the sheer meanness of the human spirit to remain hidden.  The skin is an organ which covers, and for that we may be thankful — as the inner organs of man were never meant to be exposed for viewing where beauty is replaced with the stark reality of who we are.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must continue to go to work despite the deteriorating and progressive presence of 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 positional duties, the persistent exposure to things which should remain hidden, often becomes a constancy of unrelenting corridors of shame.

Just as divorce merely widens the microscopic fissures of that which the child already sensed, and the secrets leading to wars were already well-known by enemies and allies alike, so the facade which allowed for amiability and camaraderie suddenly crumbles, and the ugliness of humanity exposes itself.  Why is it that of those things once hidden, they suddenly become public and unconstrained?  And in the very midst of medical conditions and human plight which should engender empathy and consolation, the increase in harassment and progressive punishment exponentially facilitates.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who finds him or herself in such a situation, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management becomes not merely the least of options remaining, but the best alternative to a deteriorating circumstance.

And of those things which should have remained hidden?

Like vestiges of timeless reruns from an era veiled by innocence, the reels of fading images defy the reality of our day, and the best course of action is to prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to OPM so that the escape hatch can invite a gust of fresh air where once the stuffiness of a stale and toxic environment was suffocating the very life out of our soulful existence.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire