Responding to an OPM Disability Denial: The Mixed Case

Of course, it can be readily argued that every case is a “mixed” one — meaning thereby that the disability case itself cannot ever be merely based upon interpreting the facts presented (or, in the case specifically of a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement claim, interpreting the medical documentation), but necessarily includes case law and statutory criteria beyond the facts of the case.

That being so, it is all the more relevant to recognize that in a Federal Employee Disability Retirement case, mere recitation of the medical documentation does not resolve any differences of analysis.  OPM systematically either fails to recognize the applicable laws in denying the Federal or Postal employee’s application for Federal Disability Retirement, or acts as if they are an autocratic bureaucracy unrestricted and uninhibited by any statutory or judicial mandate of the governing laws.

The fact is that every Federal or Postal Disability Retirement case is a mixed case where the precedents of prior similar cases have rendered legal decisions impacting upon specific issues inherent in every disability retirement application, and the core disputes which arise rarely focus upon the medical documentation, but more often upon the legal interpretation arising from the application of the relevant laws upon the medical documentation.

That is why the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is so often wrong in their initial determination in denying a Federal Disability Retirement application — because the “medical specialists” at OPM are not lawyers and therefore are not conversant in the relevance and impact of the ever-growing body of laws governing Federal Disability Retirement.

That being said, in responding to a denial of a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement claim by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is important to always respond with the force of the law and to continually remind OPM that their failure to approve your case is not merely a difference of analytical opinion, but is a clear and blatant violation of the applicable laws governing the issues concerning your Federal Disability Retirement application.

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 for Federal Employees: Stuck in Another Time

We live for a time — perhaps as a child, or sometime in our youth — then move on.  Later, perhaps someone refers to the city, town or county of those prior years, or you see a photograph of the place; what do we recall?

The memory of a prior experience, a place we once visited, a house we grew up in; despite the years which ensue, the knowledge that change occurs daily, and the realization that nothing ever stays the same: Yet, we remain stuck in another time.  We go through life saying things like, “Oh, I should take you back there — it is such a quiet and peaceful place!”  Or: “When I was growing up…”.

It is like going back to a reunion of sorts — likely, nostalgia for places once existed, results in disappointment, precisely because one’s memory, stuck in another time, never meets up to the expectation of perfection abstracted from an imperfect world.

Medical conditions have somewhat of a similar effect.  We tend to walk about with the image of youth — of that vibrant, fearless individual who once walked this earth.  Perhaps you once jumped out of planes in the military; or lifted weights, trekked through the woods for miles on end; ran, jumped, did marathons and always maintained your “fitness”.

Then, a medical condition hits.  It becomes chronic.  It progressively debilitates.  Still, stuck in another time, what is one to do?

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, consider filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

For, being stuck in another time does not mean that you should remain in a place which is no longer compatible with the current conditions you face.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: The words we never use

Are they like scraps of papers left in one’s back pocket, or in the vast chasms of oversized purses that seemingly have no bottom and certainly reveal no corners?  Do we keep them in our wallets, reserve them for special occasions, or otherwise allow them to float in the ethereal universe of unclaimed inventions?  Is there a Lost-and-Found Section within an agency entitled, “U.S. Department of Words” (or, should there be) that deals exclusively with ones that are never used?  And in a pragmatic society where utility is the key for relevance, applicability, value and worth, is there any sense to pointing out that which is never used, never recalled, rarely regurgitated and almost certainly never thought of even in the privacy of soliloquies left unstated?

The words we never use can be categorized into: A. Ones we’ve never learned about nor looked up, B. Ones we once knew when once we were serious-minded students who diligently looked up every word we knew not the definition of because we wanted to better ourselves, sound more intelligent and appear with greater utterances of sophistication at cocktail parties we were never invited to — therefore, we once looked them up, memorized them, tried to use them in sentences, and then promptly forgot them, or C. Ones we never came across, have now no interest in using them because we have become old and lazy.

There is a fourth possibility — that we “know” them but “fear” that the mere utterance of them will make a nightmare of a reality we want to avoid.  “Divorce” is one such word for kids who watch their parents fight, and wonder about their own security in the universe of unstable families; “Chronic” or “intractable” are two others — for those with medical conditions who do not want to hear their doctors talk about the consequences of certain disabilities which have developed over the past couple of years.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition where such medical conditions have now come to the point of being chronic and intractable, and thus prevents the Federal or Postal employee from continuing in his or her career with the Federal government, it is time to consider another set of words which were previously never used: Federal Disability Retirement.

Avoiding the use of words will not undo the reality surrounding the conceptual paradigms encountered; and procrastinating the thought, initiation or formulation of an effective Federal or  Postal Disability Retirement application will not make such words go away; they will remain, even if they are words which we never wanted to use.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
OPM Disability Retirement Attorney

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The difficult good-bye

It is always difficult to say good-bye.  Whether of a long duration, or with a quick ending to an already fast-deteriorating relationship, the good-bye that brings sorrow, tears and a sense of unease is the one that once was never thought of.

Separating from loved ones; the end of a stay that may have begun with trepidation, hesitation or even loathing, but which turned out to be an embracing of past memories forgotten, revitalizing conversations and enlivening moments of collective reflections; or even of a chance encounter with someone, or with the lengthy last moments with a bedridden relative who wants the warmth of human contact nearby before departing into the netherworld through gates of wandering souls.

Whatever the circumstances, the good-byes we fear, the ones we think will be a relief, and even those that turned out to end merely with a half-hearted wave of the hand — it is the difficult good-bye that echoes within the hollow of one’s mind, squeezing between schedules full and memories touching upon a conscience that will not abide.

Careers have good-byes, as well, and not just between people; for it is the career that defines so much of who we are.  It is never just the “what do you do for a living” part of it, but the title that comes with it, the identity that is attached to it, the camaraderie that accompanies it and the past memories that haunt one; these are the cementing tributaries that form one’s personhood.

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, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the difficult good-bye is the one that separates the Federal or Postal employee from the Federal Agency or the Postal Facility — not necessarily because of the circumstances compelled by the medical conditions themselves (although that is admittedly difficult enough), but often because the job itself was and has been an integral part of one’s life, livelihood and identity, and because any change in one’s routine is hard enough.

Filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is essentially saying good-bye to a good chunk of one’s daily routine of life and living — of spending about 50% or more of one’s life (including preparing for the day, commuting, doing work-related emails and similar activities, etc.) — and thus will be, even under the best of circumstances, a difficult separation and departing.

But always remember that the difficult good-bye is the one that retains an abiding meaningfulness within the souls of worthwhile characters, which then forms the seeds of hope for a future yet untold, as opposed to the half-hearted wave of the hand that dismisses so casually that we remember not even which hand with which we waved good-bye.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation on Federal Disability Retirement Claims: Proof

What constitutes it, and how do we learn of its sufficiency or relevance?

Take the following scenario: A group of boys are gathered together along with Billy, the “town bully”.  A discussion of sorts ensues — who is the toughest kid in town?  Some of the boys offer that “Dave” from across town is the meanest and toughest — a black belt in Hapkido, a state wrestling champion and a middle line backer for the high school football team.  Some others counter that Dave was once beaten up by Joe back in February, and doesn’t that “prove” that Joe is the toughest?

Then Billy suddenly stands up and everyone else becomes quiet.  He starts slowly and deliberatively pounding his right fist into the open palm of his left hand, and juts his prominent chin out in an intimidating manner, and says, “Okay!  Enough of this talk!  How ‘bout me?  Which of you weaklings says that I’m not the toughest guy in town?”

There are multiple sounds of gulps and fearful drops of sweat begin to trickle down the backs of each, and one of the other kids — a skinny little weasel with thick, black-rimmed glasses, suddenly shouts, “That’s proof enough for me!”  Following was a loud and unequivocal consensus of unanimous agreement.

In such a scenario, two things occurred: One — Billy “proved” that he was the toughest kid in town, and Two — all of the other kids took the lesson to heart that the proof of a physical presence and the threat presented was “sufficient” proof, as well as relevant as all get-go.

Thus are all of the components necessary to establishing verification of a propositional truth established: the town bully’s declarative utterance, backed by the force of a metaphorical persuasion (for one would argue that no overt coerciveness was used, but merely an innocent act of pounding one’s fist into the open palm of one’s other hand, and if asked whether Billy “threatened” anyone into declaring him as the toughest kid in town, he would and could innocently declare that there is “no proof” of any such accusation established or verified), and further reinforced by the scientific consensus of his peers and fellow students.

Proof was offered, considered, and accepted in full by a persuasive methodology of a succinct and effective form.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the systematic and methodological “proof” which must be gathered and presented to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in establishing the Federal or Postal employee’s eligibility and entitlement to Federal Disability Retirement benefits must, of course, be somewhat more sophisticated than the rudimentary — but effective — amassing of proof portrayed by Billy the Town Bully.

Of course, some of the characteristics may still be relevant — of what constitutes “effective” proof; of what works as “persuasive” proof; of what is comprised of proof itself.  But the difference is that, while proof that leads to an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management should last for the lifetime of the Federal or Postal employee, “proof” for the kids who agreed that Billy was the toughest guy in town lasted only so long as the threat presented kept everyone convinced.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Service: The cultural compass

The aggregate of knowledge as amassed by any given society does not constitute a unique culture, identifiable as distinct from all others; otherwise, as general knowledge is disseminated throughout and across national and international zones of distinguishing features, all cultures would remain the same.  Culture precedes knowledge, and is the driving force which specifies the direction of it.  The relevance; the choice between what is accepted and subsumed; the normative constraints and demarcations which preserve the very distinctiveness of any given culture; these are what focuses the idiosyncrasies of the preserve.

One may query, as in the question, Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  But that is a nonsensical approach to any such issue; for, the answer is that, in the prefatory phase of cultural origination, when language and analysis did not necessitate a reflection upon the loss of either culture or knowledge, there was a symbiotic relationship where each fed into the other and enhanced in a self-reflective manner; it is only in this time of modernity, when an evaluation of the loss and destruction of culture is occurring, that such a question is even posited.

An addendum observation to be made, of course, is that information does not constitute knowledge, and thus cannot define the distinctiveness of a culture.  All cultures retain and accumulate information; some cultures have been able to preserve distinctive knowledge; the ones which rely merely upon the aggregate of the former are fast becoming extinct and subsumed by the juggernaut of the Internet, where lines of distinguishable features become lost in the widening chasm of the vacuum void; it is only the remaining enclaves that recognize the importance of the latter which will survive in this Brave New World of Huxley’s predictable outcome.

Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, of course, understand full well the uniqueness of their own “culture”; for, the bureaucracy of service, in an industry which looks after the protection of the country, providing for administrative, regulatory and social services throughout the nation; of the receipt and delivery of letters, parcels and packages throughout the country and beyond; it is, in the end, a unique subculture within the greater society of the country.

And it retains and applies a distinctive set of knowledge, disconnected in many ways from the rest of society, and thus comprises a definitive “culture”.  But even such a subculture can lose its “cultural compass”, and this can be seen when a fellow worker, whether a Federal employee or a U.S. Postal worker, begins to suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition leads to the necessity of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

That is when the “ugliness” of a culture uniquely identified can come to the fore, and reveal its inner nature of wickedness.  When fellow support fails to empathize; when coworkers turn on each other; when supervisors begin to harass and demean; such behavior tends to denigrate the entirety of a cultural compass which has lost its way, and preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, submitted ultimately to OPM, is a way not of preserving the cultural compass left behind, but recognizing that the direction pointed had gone awry, and corrective action necessitated a reorientation of leaving behind the twilight of past darkness, and into a dawn of greater opportunities.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The Default Mode Network (DMN)

In neuroscience, it represents various regions in the brain which engage in intersecting activities beyond a normal volume of interplay, and like a superhighway of liveliness, the correlative process of functioning is maintained at an exponential level of rapid-fire inter-connectivity when the human brain is not focused upon a particular task in the “outside” world, but rather, when engaged in the insular universe of daydreaming, thinking, or wandering in meandering thoughts.

Thus, the high-functioning network of synapses and neuro-cognitive hot-wires activates by default when one is at a “wakeful rest” — meaning, when the eyes are open, but focused inward as opposed to the outer environment of external stimuli and purposeful, productive activity.

The default mode is most active when the mind is passive and at rest; it is the anomaly of the brain, where the opposite occurs in relation to a subconscious characteristic of the organism.  It is this insular conundrum which also powers other mechanisms; and so when an electronic device falters, we engage a “default” mode where the inner sanctum of the wiring regenerates by reverting back to its original existence.

It is of interest that evolution favored such activity of the brain, where it awaits the quietude of self-reflection on the outside (at least in appearance, if not in reality), when the sudden increase of activity is triggered on the inside.  But that type of convex reflection of self paralleling its very opposite is what often happens in all of life; even in the rather mundane example of turning one’s back, when the knives become sharper and the stabbers come out of their cubbyholes.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition may necessitate 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, the workings of the Default Mode Network is instructive in the following way:  For the Federal or Postal employee, there is always activity even in a state of non-activity.  Productivity as judged by the “outside” world is not the only “means-testing” modality to go by.  Other things matter — sometimes hidden, otherwise overtly exposed.

The fact that you may suffer on the outside may not impact others into any greater activity of sympathy or empathetic responsiveness.  What matters in the end for the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker who can no longer perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional duties, is to engage the outer world in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with OPM, in order that one may attain a level of wakeful rest which the Default Mode Network is seeking to accomplish.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire