Federal Disability Retirement: The Sound of Fury

It is the partial title of Faulkner’s classic, of course — The Sound and the Fury — of the emptiness of shadows, or attempting to regain what once was, of reputation and dignity.

Much of life today is filled with the sound of fury — for what; about what; for what reason, is anyone’s guess.  But there is fury all around — against the government; against people who have opposite viewpoints; against life itself.  Whatever the sound of fury sounds like, we can hear it on talk radio, in political speeches, in Twitter and other Social Media outlets.

There are sounds, and then there is fury, and the two are different, which is why Faulkner’s title tells the full story, whereas in today’s circus of unhappy lives, the “half story” of the sound of fury is so much more apt.  For, so much of the furor and the sound of fury is about nothingness, but as passion sells and the greater sound of fury persuades and fills the void where reason and rationality once prevailed, so the sound of fury is what dominates modernity.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who voice the sound of fury against the unfairness of life when a medical condition begins to impact your career, remember that Federal Disability Retirement benefits under the FERS system is available as an option to merely voicing the sound of fury.  It is a benefit which you earned when you became a Federal employee and earned a minimum of 18 months of Federal Service.

Contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of initiating an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS — not necessarily with any sound of fury, however.

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: Subjectivity

The “aim” of Western Thought has always been to gain credibility — of attaining to Eternal Truths and Universalities.  In a dinner conversation, the quickest way to denigrate someone’s opinion or viewpoint is to merely say, “Yes, but what you have said is merely subjective; it has no objective basis in fact”.

In a previous epoch, John Adams is attributed to having said that objective facts “are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”  He was making the distinction between the subjective world and the objective universe, and placing greater weight upon the latter.

In modernity, such a statement has lost some of its luster, if not its very essence of relevance, because we live in a post-factual world where objective facts do not hold such an esteemed status, anymore.  And yet…. Even in this world, there are somehow the remnants of elevated claims to greater significance, if something is “objectively” factual, as opposed to subjectively stated.

There is always the implication and inference that when something is deemed “subjective”, and purely so, that it is somehow concocted, imagined, “made-up” — like the child who believes that he/she is a master chef of world renown, when in fact the kitchen set-up in front of him/her is a toy kitchenette made of plastic and wood.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from an illness or disability and who need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, OPM systematically will make deriding and denigrating statements when it comes to “subjective” statements — of psychiatric symptoms, of chronic pain, of profound fatigue, etc.

They will say: “There is no objective verification of your X”.  Really?  Pain is subjective by its very definition; and so are psychiatric symptoms of depression, panic attacks, insomnia, nightmares, feeling sad, etc. How to counter it?  The good news is that the law is on the side of the Federal Disability Retirement applicant.

Contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and let not the unlawful tag of “subjectivity” defeat an otherwise valid Federal employee’s OPM Disability Retirement Application under the FERS system.

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 Attorney Representation: Confusion

What is it?  Does being uninformed and acting upon wrong information result in the conclusion that one suffers from it?  What if you deliberately ignore facts?  Or, must it involve some notion that in spite of the information available, one cannot either comprehend the available data or there exists some inability to understand the presented information?

Confusion is rampant in modernity, and whether we can define it or understand its origins, the fact remains that there appears to be a proportionality between the greater volume of information made available, and the number of individuals who suffer more and more from this malady designated as “confusion”.

The world has devolved more and more into a technical field of information gluttony; and while we may fool ourselves into believing that our present civilization is the most advanced in the history of the universe, the lack of coherence in thought, rationality and capacity to comprehend the available information gathered is astounding.

Federal Disability Retirement Law, as well, can be confusing and confounding.

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, contact an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and make sure that confusion is not the basis for which the U.S. Office of Personnel Management denies your Federal Disability Retirement application 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.

 

OPM Disability Retirement Law: The Grand Plan

It would certainly be nice if we all possessed one — set in stone, written and accompanied at our birth, mapping out our future and showing each of us what steps to take.  Perhaps, some would interpret such a fantasy as one inviting totalitarianism, and a rebellion would be incited based upon the notion that we all should be entitled to liberty — to have the freedom to choose our own destiny.  Yes, but look where that has gotten us.

The “Grand Plan” — that plan of all plans, the roadmap for our lives, the destiny-setting details already fated without our input; now, who wouldn’t want such a treasure trove?  There are, indeed, some individuals who seem to possess and follow such a map, while the rest of us struggle to “find our way” or to “know what to do”.  The world is full of individuals who fall in the category of “undecideds”.  We refer to them with euphemisms like, “He is a late bloomer”, “She’s taking off a year to get her bearings”, or “He just hasn’t found himself”, etc.

To paraphrase a character from an old movie, “I can’t even figure out how to use the can opener; how am I to know what to do with the rest of my life?”  As an old Chinese proverb states, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step”.  Take life in increments; begin with small projects and build upon them.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have encountered medical conditions which have become an impediment to “The Grand Plan”, you may want to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS.

Each of us has a contribution to make; each of us has plans for the future; but when a medical condition necessitates a Federal or Postal employee to alter or modify that “Grand Plan” of a career, you may need to consider Federal Disability Retirement as an added feature of that Grand Plan which never appeared when the birth certificate was first written.

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 Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Retirement: What We Don’t Know

Age brings us closer to realizing the truth of Socrate’s refrain: That I really don’t know anything or, more to the point, much of anything.

Youth allows for brashness of arrogance; in middle age, perhaps some slight hesitancy; of getting older, one realizes the extent of or lack, and the vast knowledge which we will never be able to understand.  Most people “wing it” — in other words, act “as if” they have some knowledge, that they possess an “expertise” or some secret to an apparent success attained.

Social Media, Facebook, Instagram — these, of course, mask and hide the inadequacies behind the facade of competency.  Few people nowadays admit to an imperfection, a lack of, an ignorance for, etc.  Thus do we no longer have the Socratic Method where questions are peppered in order to reveal the disguised ignorance which most people walk about with.

But let’s be clear: What we don’t know can, in fact, hurt us, and to fail to acknowledge one’s lack of knowledge can have dire consequences.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service employees who intend on filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, you should take the time to read the case-law which has developed and evolved over many decades, in order to at least understand the underlying issues which can complicate a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Or, contact a Federal lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and let him inform you of what you don’t know.

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.

 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Disability Retirement: Divide and Conquer

Perhaps it is not any one medical condition, alone which prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one’s Federal or Postal position; rather, the aggregation and combination of multiple conditions — of depression combined with chronic migraines; or back pain along with panic attacks and severe anxiety, etc. — prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management — the Federal Agency which reviews and makes the decision for an approval or a denial on all Federal Disability Retirement applications — is fully aware of this, but proceeds to divide and isolate each medical condition, minimizing the impact of that specific condition without taking into account the intersecting impact of all other medical conditions, and thereby denies the Federal Disability Retirement application by ignoring the aggregation and combined impact of one’s entirety of health concerns.

This is the age-old military maneuver of divide and conquer — divide and isolate the enemy’s flanks, then attack each individual and isolated division one by one until each are conquered separately and individually.  It is a tactic used by OPM in many cases, and done successfully — until and unless there is a counterattack utilizing and applying OPM laws governing Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Contact an OPM Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin to put together the strategy to counter OPM’s “Divide and Conquer” approach to Federal Disability 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 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

 

OPM Medical Disability Retirement: The complexity of 2

It is the solo flight that presents the escape of simplicity; inclusion of another, and suddenly the complexity of responsibility, duty, obligation and sense of “ought” becomes a part of the entire equation.  At first, it may be love born upon an equal plane; any sense of disproportionality is easily ignored, quickly deflected and unselfconsciously dispensed with; but over time, the complexity of 2 begins to creep in.

It is neither insidious nor inherently negative by artifice; rather, it is the most natural of sensibilities, arising from a knowledge that reliance upon one another not only acknowledges and validates the vows of matrimony, but moreover, the eternal commitment each makes to the other forever forges the bonds of undiluted friendship, like kindred spirits floating in some ethereal universe unperturbed by distractions of consternation consecrated upon the altar of destruction.

Have you ever observed the interaction of singularity?  That is correct – it is simple and uncomplicated.  The asides are mere reflections of one’s own troubles; the soliloquys stated without puzzlement or obfuscation.

Then, if you add a second, the complexity of 2 comes into play – of misunderstandings, miscommunications and loss of solidarity in the oneness of judgment.  What if there are three?  Then, suddenly not only are there relationships between the first and second, but between first and third, second and third, as well as the tripartite interaction between all three simultaneously.  And of four?

The exponential complexity that arises from adding one more to each magnification of interrelationships enhances beyond the mere introduction of another, but creates a havoc beyond the singularity of such an entrance.  Why is this?

One would, on a purely conceptual level, likely argue that since the simplicity of 1 remains so, ergo the combination of each should logically retain such lack of complication.  But such an argument based upon theoretical argumentation and rationality elliptically conducted in an antiseptic environment and context fails to recognize the innate complexity of each human being.

That is why, in preparing 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, the simple-enough questions posed and queried on Standard Form 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, can never be characterized as “easy” or “straightforward”.

Why?  Because there is the complexity of 2 – or more.  For, while the questions themselves are answered by the singular Federal or Postal employee, there are multiple facets of that same employee which requires a response – the Federal or Postal employee in the status of an employee who suffers from a medical condition; the relationship between the medical condition and the positional requirements of the Federal or Postal job; the Federal or Postal employee in the capacity of his or her personal life; the introduction of the diagnosed Federal or Postal employee with a specific medical condition.

Do you see the complexity?  It is, as always, the complexity of 2.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Early Medical Retirement under FERS & CSRS: Of spare things left in the world

We don’t seem to have a capacity to share of those things which we have no need, anymore.  Does scarcity of resources result in “doubling down” in ways formerly described as miserly in deed?  Does the free market principle of supply and demand explain the loss of social grace in responding to need?  What ever happened to the spare tire, the jingle of spare change, and the ephemeral absence of spare time?  Has society come to a criss-cross of contending forces, where the explosion of population growth, the rise of the middle class in developing nations around the globe, coupled with the exponential depletion of finite resources, have cumulatively coalesced to an incandescent compromise of character crisis?  Does the lack of everything mean that we can spare no more for others, or provide assistance in the event of need?

As for the spare tire issue, the fact is that modern technology has extended the wear of tires, and many people have lost the knowledge or skill to use a jack or a lug wrench.  This, combined with fear of scams and roadside robberies, in conjunction with the durability of today’s tires, has resulted in the widespread consequence of calls for help defined as a cellphone dial for professional roadside assistance.  Further, society has deemed that any caricature of a ‘damsel in distress’ is tainted with a misogynist attitude; and we certainly would never want to be charged with an ‘ism’ at the cost of helping another.  And of spare change?

Homelessness has been relegated to either a non-existent phenomenon until a different political tide rolls in, or has otherwise been linguistically redefined as an alternative lifestyle.  What remains, then, is our spare time — which we have no more of, despite the constant drumbeat to the contrary that the aggregate of modern technology is always supposed to ‘save us time’.  Isn’t that what we are told each time a new gadget is foisted upon us?  That it will save time so that we have more time for greater and more important things — like politicians who suddenly leave office or fail to seek another term in order to spend “more time” with family.  Right.

The fact is that we are left with very little of anything, anymore, other than to stare vacuously into the fluorescent chambers of computer screens and smartphone apps.  Yet, spare time, spare tires and spare change — while apparently mere arbitrary anachronisms of antiquity, alas, fading into the dim light of change itself — reflects a community of sharing now lost as art was once a defined form.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional duties, the idea of sparing a person a break, has gone the way of other spare things.  Neither the Federal agency nor the U.S. Postal Service has any spare time to spare anything, anymore, and certainly no more than the rest of society can spare.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, can be likened to the spare tire in the back of the trunk, which is always there but forgotten but for the time of crisis or need.  When the Federal or Postal worker can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties with the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, then preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application to OPM is like getting out that spare tire.

The problem is, as most people have lost the skill to use the ‘other’ implements hidden beside the spare tire — like the jack and the lug wrench — so the proverbial roadside assistance may be required.  As for spare change and spare time?  Pockets are a requirement for the former, and future fashion will determine the necessity of an antiquated design, as will inflation and online banking for the need of coins or paper money at all; and as for the latter, we are told that we have more of that than ever before; just not enough to spare for others.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal OPM Disability Retirement: Parsing words and convoluted sentences

Choosing the appropriate word in linguistic expression is the corridor for comprehension; like weapons in the wrong hands and the capacity to push the proverbial button to initiate a first strike, the modern proponent of the elasticity of language has been accused of taking the parsing of it a bridge too far.  Of course, the general consensus is that lawyers “are to blame”; for, in engaging the fine-print and analysis of syntactic components to their exponential extremes, the convoluted manner in which meanings are twisted, coiled and folded into multiple layers of annotations, denotations and connotations, implies a loss of symbiosis between words, reality and the correspondence between the two.

Do words have any meaning at all, anymore?  Or, put in a different way and from a variegated perspective, must the word remain static, or be subjected to the interpretive emotional status at any given moment?  In a different context, such a question posed embraces an implied argument for the hermeneutical approaches that form the wide chasm in Constitutional theory — of “originalism” as opposed to the “living document” school of thought.

Whether one places significance upon the authorial intent, as opposed to the reader’s unconstrained translation of the contextual discourse, tells a lot about a person, his approach to life, and the manner of one’s capacity to evaluate and logically think.

In the end, it is perhaps the compromise between the two extremes which will hold sway with the ordinary person who happens to pick up a Shakespearean play and begins plodding through the double and triple entendres contained within, beneath, and every which way — that the greatest delineation of words and compilation of sentence structures must, however formulated and concisely aggregated, reflect a mastery of the word such that the here and now can be understood, but with a malleability open for playful interpretation.

This is an important point to understand — and for the Federal employee and the U.S. Postal worker who is preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, every applicant must write up a Statement of Disability in response to Standard Form 3112A, and while the questions necessarily and somewhat delimit the context and content of the substantive form provided, it is the careful parsing of words and the need to refrain from a convoluted discourse which must guide the Federal or Postal employee into presenting a cohesive narrative, a logical and methodological argumentation of persuasive weight, and a clarity of deliberative purpose which sways the reader — the administrative “specialist” at OPM — into granting a Federal Disability Retirement application with a responsive (but merely a “template”) letter stating with unequivocal and unmistakable bluntness: “Approved“.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire