Federal Disability Retirement Law: Innocence & Wonder

The loss of the former results in the disappearance of the latter; for, it is the conditional existence of the former which allows for the latter.  The question in modernity is, Can a child even possess a modicum of innocence these days, in the midst of technological dissipation?  And if the answer is a fervent, “No”, then what chance is there of preserving that wide-eyed characteristic of Wonder — of curiosity compelled by a belief that there is value in the world to search for?

How often have we heard parents say something to the effect of, “I just want my kid to have some sort of childhood to enjoy,” or, “Let kids be kids.  They will grow up soon enough”?

In today’s world where pressures are so persistent to excel, to competitively grow up in order to have the greater advantage of material success, it is a wonder that children have any childhoods at all, as innocence has become equated to a disadvantageous naïveté and wonder a mere byproduct of ignorance.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service workers who suffer from a health condition such that the health condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the basic elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the time for innocence and wonder has long passed; for, while you may once have had the experience of both, your medical condition combined with the way that your Agency or the Postal Service has treated you, has likely resulted in a more cynical perspective.

Don’t let that, however, prevent you from reaching the ultimate goal: Of obtaining a Federal Disability Retirement annuity under the FERS system from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Contact a Federal Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and return to a time where Innocence & Wonder may still be experienced.

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 Law: Societal Perfection

Anselm’s Ontological argument for the existence of God is dependent upon a crucial conceptual construct which, if and only if accepted, works.

It is the concept of “perfection”.  For, if existence — or, “to be” — constitutes the satisfying minor premise of the definition contained in the major premise, “That than which nothing greater can be conceived of”, then the question is: Do we necessarily have to agree with the societal construct of what “greater” means or, similarly of what “perfection” must entail?

Most ontological arguments must include some acceptance of what “perfection” entails — of the query involving, “How can an imperfect being possess a concept of perfection unless that perfection exists?”

But when it comes down to the details of what we mean by the term “perfection”, we find ourselves in squabbles of circular argumentation.  Societal constructs of perfection — or, of even lesser norms, like what is a “good” citizen, a dedicated worker, a loyal individual, etc. — often gets us into trouble, especially when such a definition becomes the basis for a self-harming viewpoint.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, continuing to work despite harming your own health is often insisted upon because of our distorted view of societal perfection.  We hold onto the societal construct of what it must mean to be a dedicated and loyal employee — i.e., the societal definition of perfection — until we die of exhaustion in trying.

FERS Disability Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is a counter to that — it is a recognition that you should not have to work in a job which is harming your health.

If you are no longer able to perform all of the essential elements of your position with the Federal Agency or the Postal Service, contact a disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement benefits and begin the process of defying the false construct of societal perfection.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Lawyer specializing exclusively in FERS Disability Retirement Law

 

OPM Disability Retirement benefits: Misjudging Yourself

It is not an accident that most people are unable to accurately assess or evaluate themselves, their circumstances or the road forward.  Look at Plato and his magnum opus — The Republic.  Therein lies the hoax of unfettered hubris — of the declaration of who should be the ruler and king?  None other than the Philosopher — or, more humbly put, Plato himself.

Are we the best judge of ourselves?  All of us have a tendency towards seeing ourselves in greater or lesser degrees which fails to reflect reality.  To compound the problem, we also rarely appreciate criticism or outside evaluations which do not comport with our own self-assessment.  Yet, in most serious circumstances, that is precisely what is needed — an objective accounting of a given situation; the alternatives available or potentially open; the solutions possible; the road forward.

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, the need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is a given; but the assessment in the strength of a case, what is needed to bolster the chances of winning against OPM and the requirements to meet the legal criteria — those issues should be handled by a competent disability attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

For, as the patient as well as the Disability Retirement Applicant, you will likely misjudge yourself because you believe that your medical condition — by which you suffer so much — should automatically qualify you.  However, that is not how OPM sees it.

Contact an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and avoid the pitfall of misjudging yourself, and allow the Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer make the crucial assessment and evaluation of your case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
FERS Disability Attorney

 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Disability Retirement: Life’s Aporia

The classic example of “aporia” is the following: A Greek individual declares to the world, “All Greeks are liars”.  Is what he said a lie?  Or, is he excluded from the statement?  If all Greeks are liars, and the declaring individual is a Greek and is therefore lying, does that mean that all Greeks tell the truth?  Or is that a lie, as well?

Thus, the term indicates an internal self-contradiction, where the statement or declarative itself is inconsistent with itself.

It is like the Federal or Postal employee who can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job — there is an inconsistency between what the individual does, and his or her medical condition.  Thus, Federal Disability Retirement benefits were put in place in order to correct one of life’s Aporias — where an internal inconsistency and incompatibility exists.

Contact an OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer who specializes in OPM Medical Retirement Law, and begin the process of reversing life’s aporia by preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Federal & Postal Worker Disability Retirement: Form-filling

There are the two sets of Standard Forms in a Federal Disability Retirement Application: The SF 3107 series, and the SF 3112 series.  Both are necessary in order to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  The first set (SF 3107) merely requests basic information throughout the multiple pages — i.e., name, address, organization, date of birth, social security number, questions on life & health insurance, etc., as well as certifying the summary of your entire federal service, etc.

It is the second set of forms (SF 3112) which is specifically pertinent to the Federal Disability Retirement process — questions involving your medical conditions (beware of what and how to list them); what impact the medical conditions have upon the Federal or Postal job that you do (the need for establishing a “nexus” between the two); as well as any accommodation efforts provided by your agency (know what the term “accommodation” as a legally viable attempt constitutes, for many people are confused about the issue).

Ultimately, Federal Disability Retirement is far more than mere form-filling; for, most anyone can fill out the first set of forms (SF 3107 series); it is the second set (SF 3112 series) which inherently sets out the basis of a viable Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Perfecting life versus living perfectly

It is the latter which most of us do, or pretend to do, and which stunts the capacity to engage in the former.  And so that which we should be doing (the former) is prevented because of that which we are already doing (the latter), in a never-ending cycle of self-destruction.

Those Internet internecine attempts which include Facebook and Instagram don’t help in these matters, and perhaps exacerbate them exponentially.  For, in both cases, they encourage each one of us to “appear” to be living perfectly, when the whole endeavor of human existence should be a striving towards perfecting our lives — i.e., of recognizing the imperfect status of our current condition, having a paradigm towards which one strives in order to correct those defects, and thus towards the “end” of this prosaically-described “journey” of sorts, to be able to declare that “perfection” was somewhat achieved.

But — no — instead, we create an appearance, a facade, a dissembling image of one’s appearance and put forth a self-portrait of an already-achieved perfection: The perfect happiness; the perfect outing; the perfect couple and the perfect participle.

The origins of philosophy (i.e., Plato, Aristotle and those who followed) were always concerned with the differentiation between “Appearance” and “Reality”; in modernity, the two have been conflated, where one’s appearance is the reality of one’s existence.  By commingling concepts which were once clearly bifurcated, we prevent the capacity of human beings to strive to be better, to grow and mature towards greater fulfillment of one’s potentiality.

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 a familiar concept — of hiding one’s imperfections in an environment that demands perfection daily.  Medical conditions and their impact on a person’s life — these are considered “imperfections” in a society that demands nothing less than perfection.  Thus does the targeted harassment begin — to “punish” the very person who needs support, empathy and understanding, instead of the constant barrage of unneeded animosity.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management may not, in and of itself, be the perfect solution; but, as imperfect a solution as filing a Federal Disability Retirement application may seem, the appearance of an imperfect solution may be preferable than the perfection expected but unattainable in a society that appears to be perfectly fine with imperfections pervasively perfected by appearances of concealed imperfections.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The prerequisite of thought

What constitutes “thought” and fails to satisfy the allegation that one has not engaged in it?

Take the following example: A young man who is courting a young woman buys a bouquet of flowers on his way home, but stops by at her place just to say hello.  She — seeing the flowers — declares, “Oh, how thoughtful of you.”  He sheepishly smiles and nods his head, but in reality the flowers were to spruce up his own apartment.  He explains this to the young woman, and she turns a smile into its opposite — a frown — and reverses her opinion, telling the cad how “thoughtless” he is being.

In reality, he had done no such thing — he had, in fact, “thought” about it, only not in the sequence that the young woman had desired.  Yet, he is charged with being “thoughtless” — and one could argue that such a charge is applicable in that he should have “thought about it” before stopping by her place, and instead should have gone ahead and followed a route straight home.

Or, of another example: Say you are debating a point with another individual, or a group of individuals, and someone during the course of your monologue says, “It is clear that you haven’t thought about it.” What, precisely, does that allegation mean and imply?  Would it have made any difference if you had previously taken yourself into a corner, sat for an hour or two reflectively posed like the famous statue by Rodin’s “The Thinker”, chin upon knuckle in a reflective pose of self-absorption — then come back to engage in the discussion?

What if your contribution to the conversation included as great an expanse of idiocy as if you had not “thought about it” — but the mere fact that you had sat for a couple of hours, or perhaps a weeklong sojourn of contemplative solitude — does it make a difference?  Isn’t “thinking about it” often done in the course of give-and-take, during the conversation engaged, as opposed to being lost in one’s own mind?

Further, isn’t singularity and isolation of “thinking” often the wrong approach, inasmuch as you may be missing something, have inadequate information, illogical in the process because of selfish interests unrecognizable, and therefore the best kind of thinking often involves debate, countering opinions and other’s input, as opposed to the isolationism of “The Thinker”?

Would it make sense to ask a dozen or so physicists to “solve the mystery of the universe” by gathering them together, then making each sit in a corner and “think about it”, as opposed to engaging them in a “give-and-take” brainstorming session?  Isn’t much of thinking “done” by engagement with others, as opposed to a soliloquy of isolationism?  If so, then why is there too often a prerequisite of thought?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have “thought” about 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, the first and most important step in making the “right” decision may not be by engaging in an isolationism of “thinking about it”, but by consulting with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law.

There is no prerequisite of thought in picking up the telephone and having an initial, free consultation with an attorney to discuss the particulars of your case, and engaging in the thoughtful exercise of considering OPM Disability Retirement by actively participating in the productive modality of thinking.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Authentication

There is a process and means by which it is accomplished — as in authenticating a painting or an antique piece of furniture, jewelry, etc.; of an autograph or handwritten letter (although, many will say that in the field of forensic sciences, handwritten analysis is far from reaching a vaunted level of precision or reliability); of a pet’s pedigree or even of a person’s right to have access to sensitive information, etc.

Authentication is thus a process of verification, of identifying X as being Not-Y in many instances, where exclusion by elimination of other possibilities results in the declaration of the genuineness of the person or thing declared to be so.

When applied to an object, it inspects and compares against other objects within a historical context, style, peculiar features of an artisan’s eccentricities, period-characteristics and signature features, etc.  When applied to an individual, it may take into account physical features as well (appearance; finger prints; voice matching; DNA sample, etc.), but could also encompass questions posed and answers given, and depending upon the comparison to known archives of historical background checks made against statements previously provided, deem that an “authentication” has been reached concerning the “true” identity of an individual, akin to declaring that a painting previously unverified is in fact a product of this or that “Master”, or that an antique furniture piece was the craftsmanship of some famous cabinetmaker during the Jeffersonian Renaissance period or from some pop-culture minimalist timeframe during the early Sixties, etc.

The process of “authentication”, of course, can be distinguished from whether or not an individual is living an “authentic life”, as well, and here, the meanings become somewhat muddled and divided.  One can be “authenticated” and be allowed access to sensitive banking information, be allowed to use a credit card, write a check, etc., and still live an inauthentic life (e.g., act like someone you are not, present yourself as a “family man” despite all the while committing multiple affairs; live a double or triple or even a quadruple life and deceive everyone around, etc.).

The process in reaching a conclusion as to whether a person is living an authentic or inauthentic life is somewhat different from “authenticating” a person.  For, to engage in the former analysis, it is normally done for the most part as a self-analysis (i.e., only the person who is living an inauthentic life can know for certain whether it is so or not), whereas the methodology imposed of “authenticating” a period-piece or an individual (the latter) is by applying a more objective standard of comparative review.

For the Federal or Postal employee who is suffering from a medical condition, where the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the dual issues of “authentication” and “authentic living” come to the fore, precisely because the Federal or Postal employee becomes forced into behaving in rather inauthentic ways.

Hiding the medical condition; trying desperately to work through the debilitating symptoms and maintaining an appearance of normalcy; and all the while trying to force a consistency between one’s capacity and the watchful eyes of the Federal Agency or the Postal Service — these are the elements that challenge the authenticity of one’s life.

Living an authentic life under normal circumstances is difficult enough; trying to authenticate one’s capacity to continue “as is” in the face of a progressively deteriorating medical condition makes it all the more challenging.  It may be that 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, is the only way forward in forging an authentic pathway away from an inauthentic morass that the medical condition has forced upon you.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire