Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: The Goldilocks Principle

Most of us are familiar with the fairytale; but in modernity, the principle extrapolated has been extended thus: the natural pendulum of occurrences must fall within a certain set of margins, as opposed to reaching the outer limits of extremes.  And, indeed, most things settle into a comfortable compromise of corollary constancy; it is precisely because of the anomaly of extremes that we take special note of the exceptions which develop and manifest.  And that is always the continuing hope of most individuals — for a reaching of compromise, and static settling into a middle ground, etc.

But for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who find that a medical condition begins to impact one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties with the Federal government or the U.S. Postal Service, the Goldilocks Principle will often fail to apply.  Increasing pressure is brought to bear (no pun intended) upon the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who shows signs of vulnerability; perhaps an initial verbal warning, then a written admonishment; then, the placement of a PIP within the constant environment of hostility; restrictions upon leave usage, and finally, a proposal to remove.

Medical conditions require priority of purpose and attending to the medical condition itself.  Actions by agencies and the U.S. Postal Service often serve to exacerbate the medical condition.  Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is an option which should be considered earlier, than later.

In the end, of course, the Goldilocks Principle is somewhat relatively determined by where those margins or goalposts are placed; for, in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, the realization that the middle ground of comfort is far from the fences of the extreme, depends upon where the Federal or Postal employee is standing, in relation to the medical condition, the harassment received, and the empathy shown (or more precisely stated, the lack thereof) by the agency and the U.S. Postal Service.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Medical Retirement: The Discontinuity of Wisdom

There is a reason why mistakes have a historical backdrop of repetition; as wisdom gained is neither venerated nor preserved, and as youth and folly are celebrated despite lack of accomplishment, so the latter fails to consult the former.

The discontinuity of wisdom in modernity reflects an arrogance of carelessness.  Opinions from elders are neither sought after nor consulted; “new” represents innovation, and that which constituted the radical changes of yesteryear reflect merely the boredom of todays vigor.  But reinventing the wheel at every turn is a kind of folly which borders upon insanity.  It is the reality of encountering a bureaucracy which often makes aware one’s need to consult prior experiences.

And, indeed, for Federal and Postal employees who must engage a Federal bureaucracy such as the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is a wise thing to do, to consult with an attorney who has already encountered the administrative process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

There is rarely a need to make nascent mistakes where experience has otherwise provided an answer.  Preparing, formulating and filing for Federal OPM Disability Retirement benefits by a Federal or Postal worker is a difficult process in and of itself, and the bureaucratic process exponentially magnifies the conundrums and roadblocks presented by the complexities of the administrative procedures.

While society itself will eschew the wisdom of ages, within the microcosm if everyday life, it is often a good idea to consult with an experienced advisor, if only to find out where the darned bathroom is.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire