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: Understanding, Comprehending, Applying

Is there a definitional distinction between the first two?  And, must one of the two first be satisfied before the third can be employed?  Should the sequence of the first two words be switched?  In other words, does “comprehending” come before “understanding”?  Can you comprehend something without understanding it?  Or, conversely, can you understand something without comprehending it?

The semantic debate can focus upon different aspects of the words.  For example, the term “comprehend” implies a more expansive concept than the word “understand” — and thus the related term, “comprehensive”, which encapsulates a greater bubble of knowledge.  On the other hand, the word “understand” implies a finality — the end result — as in, “Yes, now I understand”, whereas “comprehend” may infer the “process” of reaching that understanding, as in, “Yes, I comprehend it, now, and finally understand what you are saying.”

And the term “applying”?  That is the act of showing that you both comprehend and understand the concept, by actively engaging it with the objective world.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition and need to apply for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, the need to comprehend and understand at least part of the process of Federal Disability Retirement is a “must”; to apply it, however, you should contact an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest you fail to understand or only partially comprehend the complexities of the application of the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement.

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.

 

Early Retirement for Federal Employees with Disabilities: Persuasion

Can the written word persuade?  Can “passion” be elicited by a series of letters, dots, crossing “t’s” and other such grammatical nuances?

Certainly, when language is spoken, we often hear discussions about the “passionate” delivery, or the fact that the speaker was “fiery”, a “true believer”, or even “inspiring”, etc.  Somehow, and for whatever reasons, we attach the emotional component of a speaker’s voice with the persuasive force of sincerity upon the words themselves.  Can it ever be “faked”?

We are too often too naive to think not; and that, of course, is what the con-man and the counterfeiter is banking upon.  Persuasion offered by an impassioned voice is much easier than the power of the written word; for, articulated with the right barometer of a voice’s pitch, it tugs at one’s hearts and confuses the otherwise skeptical mind.  A paper presentation must persuade through the force of logical argumentation; for, there exists no voice of passionate conveyance to do otherwise.

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 of Postal job, filing a Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management must by necessity be a paper-presentation to OPM.  To be persuasive is thus doubly-difficult, as you must make sure that all of your arguments are articulated with soundness of reasoning and forceful in their legal relevance.

Consult with a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and make sure that your method of persuasion matches the substantive weight of you circumstances.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation on Federal Disability Retirement Claims: That voice within

Whose voice is debating within the insular corridors of the otherwise silent individual?  Which one is the dominant voice, and how does one determine if that particular voice should be the one which attains such a prominent status and stature within the cauldron of one’s own thoughts?

We assume, of course, that when we are pondering within the insularity of our own thoughts, that the voice which speaks within is our own voice; but is it necessarily so?  Yes, yes — the traditional concept of “madness” will begin to encroach, of strange voices which begin to invade and intrude, and where schizophrenia is considered the likely explanation whenever “other” voices are considered.

But that is not what is necessarily the case.  It may be that the voice within is simply a regurgitation from a memory stored long ago — perhaps of one’s parents; a friend; an old school chum; a brother, sister or a cousin; and it is retrieved as an amalgamation of many others, besides.  More importantly, who determines the validity of what is being said, the subject of debate and the substance of the winning argument?

The danger of a soliloquy is that the lone figure who tries to figure things out on his or her own may not have all of the facts or information at hand which can lead to the right decision being made.  An unheard conversation undertaken and engaged by a singular voice may be no discussion at all; it may merely be a wrong-headed delineation based upon errors in fact and missteps in logical analysis.  That is why it is important to consult a person who specializes in a field and is knowledgeable at the outset, so that the facts gathered and the analysis conducted are sound methodologies based upon superior analytical insights and resulting in expert advice.

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, it is important to gather the necessary and pertinent facts about the entire process, the known administrative facets and pitfalls, etc., so that a superior decision can be reached in preparing, formulating and filing an effective 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, so that the voice within will avoid the mistake of listening to too many voices without which may lead him or her down the false paths of misinformation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Attorney Representation OPM Disability: Analogies and life

Life is lived by analogies.  It is how we understand, comprehend and make sense of a world in turmoil.  By identifying a resemblance between two or more particulars while perhaps remaining somewhat different in other aspects, we are able to relate things, understand them, comprehend the isolation of differentiation between X and Y and yet embrace those differences despite the lack of commonality in all other respects.

Without the tool and transporting impact of an analogy, most of the objective world would remain isolated, irrelevant and separated from the subjective coherence that we bring to the world.  Explanations and argumentation would often lack any comprehensible understanding; scientists would simply speak in technical languages that non-scientists (i.e., laymen like most of us) would fail to appreciate; and life would continually remain a series of isolated islands of conceptual conundrums that would be separated from civilization as a whole.

That is essentially why the administrative laws governing Federal Disability Retirement must by necessity be spoken of in analogic terms – precisely because, in order to make sense in the greater context of life, everything in particular can only be “explained” and “made sense of” through analogies that we can relate to.  Without relational contexts and reference points, life’s various complexities would remain in isolation from one another.

Thus, analogies, life and Federal Disability Retirement benefits all share a common perspective – that of human beings who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal positional duties, and that a particular “condition” or life shares with all other conditions of life the reference points that we can all understand: Law, Complexity, Human suffering, Pain, The fear of change, The need for change; Confusion; Trauma; Medical conditions, etc.

Analogies allow for understanding; life, left in isolation, is confusing as it is, and even after a lifetime of trying to understand and simplify, still remains a mystery.

And for the Federal or Postal employee who is at a point in one’s career where a medical condition impacts the ability to continue in that career, the reference point that needs to be kept in mind is that there are lawyers who specialize in getting Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and we are here to help.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from OPM: Dreams, daydreams and nightmares

Of the first in this triplet trope, the concept can envision two distinct avenues:  in a state of somnolence, to have them with minimal control of appearance; or, in another sense, to possess aspirations beyond one’s station in life or current circumstances that may impute dissatisfaction.

The second in the series is somewhat connected to the second concept branching from the first; it is a moment of reflective escape, where the reality of “now” and the encounter with Being is temporarily averted and subsumed in a meditative silence of self-repose.  Some have the capacity to embrace and become lost in such quietude of an alternate universe, despite a clutter of noises or the distraction of tumult.  Then, some would counter that it is precisely in such moments that fleeing into a parallel universe of a mental cocoon is necessary in order to maintain one’s sanity in a world replete with a curiosity shop full of random violence.

And, of the third, we again branch into a duality with the proverbial fork in the road; for, such infamy of uncontrolled images and voices while in a sleeping slumber constitutes the primary definition; but, whether in metaphorical terms or engaging in trifling hyperbole, we attribute traumatic and frightful events by describing it precisely by the term at hand.

Dreams, daydreams and nightmares are all part of our daily lives, whether awake, half-aware, conscious or sub-conscious in multiple and mysterious modalities of living; but they serve a purpose which, whether explained away by psychologists, therapists, pseudo-intellectuals or just plain people of tremendous insights and uncanny foresights, they continue to remain the foundation for maintaining the sanity preserved within the insanity of the greater universe.

Without nightmares, how would the inner psyche expiate the images and sense datum we have involuntarily ingested?  Without daydreams, what would man hope for, live for, in circumstances of squalor and decadence?  And of dreams, how would the subconscious sift through the visual and information overload experienced daily and in voluminous onslaughts of quantitatively overwhelming constructs?

Or of the second branch, where aspirations and hope for a better tomorrow, though derailed by screams of destitution and unhinged by crying babies, drunken realities and unsavory circumstances, yet to dream for a better tomorrow is sometimes the only thread which separates the crumbling heart from a tinge of a fading smile.  It is precisely these that allows for man to wake up the next morning and seek a better tomorrow.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who find themselves with shattered dreams, escaping into a greater cauldron of daydreaming, or rustling in sleepless fits of nightmares unavailing, all because one’s career is on the proverbial “line” resulting from a medical condition which may cut short one’s dreams, daydreams and creating a chaos of nightmares, preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, may be the first step in the aspirational discourse needed to regain one’s equilibrium.

The importance of trifurcating between dreams, daydreams and nightmares is a prescient step towards recognizing that the reality of one’s present circumstances may be described as a “nightmare”, and perhaps those sleepless nights are filled with them; but in order for the Federal or Postal employee to dream of a better tomorrow, the leisure of daydreaming must be allowed, but always tempered by pragmatic steps which must be undertaken in the reality of day-to-day living, in order to reach a specific goal:  That of getting an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in order to reach that light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, which is neither defined by dreams, nor attained by daydreaming, and certainly not a nightmare to avoid.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Medical Retirement: The Corner Thought

Corners are creations of geometric amplitudes; we point and direct that some person, object or place is “just around the corner”, deferred from a reference point of equilibrium.  Furniture pieces fail to fit in them, unless they are specifically designed for that purpose; people congregate towards them, especially those at parties who desire a semblance of anonymity or quiet discretion; and we used to send bratty kids to sit and stare at the geometric arrowhead of oblivion, hoping that the boredom of such a consecrated space would straighten out their demented characters.

Thoughts, likewise, remain sweetly anonymous, unless of course one blurts out what previously existed in the quietude of consciousness, and even then, we remark that such declarations emitted from the hollow of one’s mouth were mere “thoughtlessness”, thus negating that very expression which just a short while ago remained unknown and unknowable, but in a flash of an instant, articulated in the shattered world of calm and noiseless space.

When space and conceptual expression combine to coalesce, we refer to it as “the corner thought”.  The corner thought is that conceptual construct which is relegated to a later time, pushed aside and reserved for a future date of uncertain pinpoints of time.  We often never get back to it.

Like the child scolded and told to “sit in the corner until you straighten up” (a self-contradiction, to be sure, when the geometric fold of the corner is the very place where one is expected to defy a character of misgivings), the corner thought is left like mold on a damp and forgotten shelf of books and backdoor alleys, where the trash is never picked up and the stench of leftovers become a natural compost of hidden regrets.  It is always that “corner thought” which one day must come back to haunt.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who suffers silently in the angst of the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, relegated to perennial “light duty” assignments, “modified” work duties, sudden and unexpected demands to appear for a “fitness for duty” examination, then never to be heard from again until some irritant of polluted thoughtlessness tramples in from the misery of unknown lives but to whom one must submit and be subservient because of a title imparted as “supervisor”, “manager” or just plain “boss”; that corner thought was always the one entitled, “Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management”.

When the medical condition first began to impact the Federal or Postal employee’s ability and capacity to perform the essential elements of one’s positional duties, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the thought of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM was at first nothing more than that “corner thought” which was pushed aside and asunder.  But as time went on, it became clear that the miscreant of unexpressed conceptual construct needed to be dusted off, brought back, and repositioned to take a more prominent placement in the covey of ideas to be considered.

Corners cannot, of themselves, instill character into wayward children; and thoughts cannot, left alone, compel purposive action without a corresponding will to act; and it is when the corner thought takes its proper role of relevant existence, that the directionless pointing to a reference “just around the corner” will one day become solidified into a concrete plan for some time hence, by preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to combine the separateness of the corner with the delay of thought, in order to embrace that corner thought for a secure future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Medical Retirement: The language of law

Wittgenstein recognized that there exists various forms of languages within a community of a shared language — with words everyone understood, sentences all were familiar with, but the usage and meaning of which were unique to a particular group or set of individuals.  Such comity of meanings and esoteric application of language were designated as “language games”.  Information Technology groups have their own set of insulated meanings; advertising agents, insurance companies, and children who form an exclusive club may formulate within-community code words exclusive to the group alone, and alien to all around.

What, then, is the language of law?  Certainly, analogy and hypothetical models of similar situations and transactions are a part of it; and the methodology of argumentation is to show the familiarity of classes of subject-matter issues and identical-sounding situations which penetrate the judge’s capacity to accept and anticipate precedent-setting citations of prior acts.  Why the language game of the legal arena accepts as a primary basis of interaction similar-sounding prior fact-scenarios is often a mystery to “outsiders” (i.e., non-lawyers), and confounds with frustration the enormous expenditure of time and money in engaging such circuitous narratives of persuasive argumentation.

What about my case?  What difference does it make whether or not a decades-old case applies in an analogical manner to the facts at hand?  But that is precisely the point of the language of law; for, it is consistency of application and perpetuation of stability which makes for reverence for “the law”.  Arbitrariness and malleability creates suspicion of motives, and justice requires the fair constancy of applying “the law”.

This is important to understand in all arenas of the “language game of law”, and for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who may need to entertain the potentiality for 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, the entrance into “Administrative Law” (which is what filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM falls under) is no different.

Precedent-setting cases develop over decades and epochs of lifetimes; and whether the OPM Disability Retirement applicant is aware of it or not, the compendium of rules, regulations and decision-setting conclusions are all guided by, constricted within, and influenced throughout, by prior cases handed down by judicial opinions rendered “on high” by administrative law judges and Federal Court of Appeals mandates.

Should case laws be cited in the submission of a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application?  As the law is the hinge upon which society survives, so the question of persuasive argumentation may live or die based upon the vocalization of precedents.

But always remember that the language of law is a specific type of language game, and the exclusive club of legalese requires some training of usage, where applicability may sound like gobbledygook unless formulated with an ear towards coherence within the insular language game of law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire