The 2nd OPM and 3rd MSPB Stages: The True Reconsideration

Filing for a FERS Disability Retirement application is a long, arduous, and complicated bureaucratic process.  Preferably, one would like to obviously be approved at the First (INITIAL) Stage of the Process.  But these days as the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is not easily inclined to approve a case at the first stage, it is the Second (Reconsideration Stage) which is a crucial and important event in the process.

At the Reconsideration Stage, 2 important factors are presented:  First, you have the chance to correct any alleged deficiencies which OPM points out, and; Second, and just as importantly, you can begin to prepare the way for an MSPB Judge to see the strength and coherence of your medical case.  For, if OPM denies you FERS Disability Retirement benefits a second time, it will then have to be appealed to the Third Stage of the process — an appeal to the U.S Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

But as most opportunities are presented, the best way to approach this 2nd OPM Stage is to see it as a dual-purpose response:  First as a response to OPM’s Denial, and concurrently, as a legal argument to the potential MSPB Judge.

Furthermore, what OPM never tells FERS applicants is that a further “reconsideration” — a re-reconsideration — will occur if OPM denies the case a second time and an appeal is filed to the MSPB.

This is because the OPM Legal Specialist who will represent OPM at the MSPB will automatically review the case in its entirety, and re-reconsider it anew from an entirely different perspective – that from a legally sufficient perspective — in the same way, that the MSPB Judge will view it.

This is because the MSPB is a legal forum and not a bureaucratic forum —which brings us back o the “second” point in responding to an OPM Denial at the Reconsideration Stage — not only to correct any alleged deficiencies pointed out by the Office of Personnel Management, but moreover, to make persuasive legal arguments which point to the legally sufficient cogency of your application.

Thus, the Reconsideration Response should always include a Responsive legal memorandum arguing the applicable case law in preemptively preparing for the MSPB.  This not only prepares the way for arguing the merits of your case with the MSPB Administrative Judge but also gives a warning to OPM that your case will be legally invincible if and when it is appealed to the MSPB.

The best approach is to do things well from the very beginning, but even if your disability claim was already denied at the First Stage, for more reasons now, you need to contact a FERS Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law and prepare your disability case for the first appeal and reconsideration, but who also will assist you with the preparation of the “true reconsideration” stage — the re-review at the MSPB.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Specialized attorney exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their FERS Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: False Wisdom

The cottage industry which leeches upon failure and despair has always been around.  The false wisdom that “failure” is actually a positive outcome (because we can learn from it; because it leads to greater “growth”; that one cannot succeed without first tasting the bittersweet food of failure, etc.) is out there to be sold to, and purchased by, millions upon millions who have, indeed, experienced the outcome of failure.

There is, of course, an argument to be made: That you should look on the bright side of things; that lessons can, indeed, be learned from failure; that we might want to try things differently next time, etc.  On the other hand, most people would rather succeed, and do so on the first try, instead of experiencing the alleged “growth-potential” of failing at something.

False wisdom is pervasive.  Why?  For a number of reasons — because “wisdom” has been ill-defined; we no longer seek it, but only the benefits which can be wrought from it; because we interpret “success” purely in terms of material wealth, etc.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits because of a prevailing medical condition which impacts one’s ability and capacity to continue in his or her current position, false wisdom would say that there is no choice but to endure the present circumstances.

Contact a disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement, and avoid the false wisdom which pervades even in the field of a specialized area of law such as Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer
OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer

 

Legal Representation on Federal Disability Retirement Claims: Clarity in Confusion

All processes contain some level of confusion.  It is left up to the encountering individual to create clarity when confusion prevails.  Thus do we try and make sense out of a world of chaos — whether in a war, a pandemic, a crisis or a tragedy.

Some people are ill-equipped to try and order the disorder encountered; others, while inadequately prepared, may nevertheless make a feeble attempt at some semblance of comprehension; and it is left up to that rare individual to create a meaningful wholeness from a universe of chaos.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are muddled in confusion because a medical condition is preventing the Federal or Postal worker from being able to perform all of the essential elements of his or her job, confusion of a specific nature begins to prevail:  What to do?  How to survive?  What will the future hold?

These, and many other questions will predominate.  OPM Disability Retirement is one option to consider in order to reach a state of clarity in the muddle of confusion.  Contact a Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, and begin to gain some clarity within the administrative and bureaucratic morass of confusion.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: On the Verge

We often think in those terms, don’t we?  We are “on the verge” of doing something — whether of minor significance, major importance or of negligible impact.

All other species of living entities simply act and react; they do not engage in linguistic meanderings by discussing future events of unaccomplished deeds, but simply engage in the act of performance itself.  “I am on the verge of doing X” or even the further distancing statement that “X is planning to be on the verge of Y” — all statements of future intentions based upon planned coordination of unfulfilled motives.

Often, it is the perfect set of circumstances that one waits for, or a key element that remains missing before the initiation of the decision to act occurs.  To remain on the cliff’s edge, or right before the starting line, or even that twilight’s moment before one awakens, begins to stir and is aware of one’s surroundings just before the lengthy slumber of the night’s quietude turning into the frenzy of the day’s activities — that is where the “verge” remains.  Then, there are those for whom the act is never accomplished and one remains perpetually “on the verge”.

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, don’t let being “on the verge” destroy your health or potentiality left in limbo to seek other opportunities.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement is an act, not a thought, and when too much thinking betrays the medical condition by overriding good sense, it is time to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and get some sound advice on whether to remain “on the verge” of making a decision to act, or to remain with one’s Agency or Postal Service while deteriorating into a perpetual state of despondency.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Ascent and descent

It is the “high” of reaching it and the satisfaction of proceeding down and away.  The ascent is focused upon attaining a goal; the descent, a time of reflection in the satisfaction of knowing that the goal has been achieved.  What next?  That is what the challenge is, isn’t it?  Of knowing what to do next after something has been achieved and accomplished?

There are, of course, “voluntary” goals achieved, and those that are placed before us as obstacles through no choice of our own; of mountain climbers who search for the impossible — like the North Face of the Eiger where the tombs of countless attempts whisper in the arctic winds of time; or of Everest, where the icicles of history betray the foolishness of human attempts at immortality.  Then, there are obstacles that one must bear because of accidents or nature’s imperfection — of a condition one is born with, or one gets later in life.

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 ascent to achieve has already been surpassed — you need no longer “prove” yourself; it is the fear of the descent that makes you pause.

Perhaps you do not see the descent as a challenge, but more of an obstacle.  Yet, obstacles present a challenge, as well, and the medical condition itself is one such challenge.  What would you say about the mountain climber who was concurrently playing a video game on his or her Smart Phone?  Or reading a book on Kindle while trying to conquer Everest?  “Foolhardy” would come to mind; “Not focused” upon the task, would be another.

So it is with the Federal or Postal employee who continues to try and struggle with the medical condition while concurrently trying to work; and that is what a FERS Disability Retirement allows for — an annuity which then gives the opportunity to focus upon one’s health instead of always being distracted by the demands of work.  The ascent has already been achieved; filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is the descent afterwards, in order to focus upon one’s health and well-being.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Legal Representation: Owing and debt

Why must advancement always entail greater complexity?  Or, is that merely the concurrent and natural evolution of linguistic modes of communication?  Do words ascribed and the antiquated, outdated philosophical concept of language as a “correspondence” between the objective world and the language games one plays (yes, an admixture of Bertrand Russell’s criticism and Wittgenstein’s deconstructionism combined) naturally result in the bungled world of complications as a mere afterthought to sophistication and the rise of a civilization?

The simplicity of a stone-age civilization, where pursuance of food and the bare necessities to survive – is that what can be termed a “simple” life, and therefore a primitive, less advanced (or none at all) civilization?  Does the capacity to invent, discover and apply technology by definition establish that a collective group of people has “advanced”, and is the advancement a reflection of greater complexity, or is complexity the hallmark of such advancement?  Can you have an “advanced” society and yet maintain a level of simplicity such that the pinnacle of such advancement is better defined by the simplicity of living standards?

And where does sophistication, culture and refinement of the arts fit in?  Does the fact that exchange of monetary currency, the involvement of extending credit and the concomitant issues of owing and debt necessarily arise in a complex society?  When did the concept of “owing” and the concurrent idea of a “debt” owed come into the daily consciousness of an individual, a society, a civilization?  And, was it first tied to the idea of money, then to an analogy about “favors”, obligations, return of bartered goods – or was the very idea of owing or being obligated to, and having a debt to be repaid, separate and apart from the exchange of currency?  We owe a “debt of gratitude”, and a sense of “owing” that which we borrowed, or the debt we are in, and there is the “debt ceiling” and bills yet to be paid, as well as a “debt of loyalty” – do these all arise from the origin of bartering and money-lending?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers 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 employee’s capacity and ability to continue in the career of one’s choice, there is often a sense of “owing” the Federal Agency or the Postal service “something” – one’s time, one’s gratitude, one’s commitment, etc.; and that the “debt” has to somehow be repaid by killing one’s self to the enslavement of work.

It is a false idea one clings to.  The “owing” one must first be concerned with is the debt to one’s self, first – of health, future orientation and obligations to a family one has brought into this world.  Don’t confuse concepts; and be aware of metaphors that have evolved from civilization’s greater complexity where advancement does not always mean greater complexity of confounding confusions.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: Those rare, insightful moments

Must it always reach the level of an epiphany, or may it be as a passing point of fluctuating comprehension?

Every now and then, it is like the proverbial entrance into a clearing amidst the darkness of a looming forest; of a light that shines into a chasm heretofore undiscovered; and in that flash of understanding, it is important to grasp it, to tackle the concept, to concretize and declare, lest it slip silently away like the silken tail of a snake slithering into the tall grass.  Or of a dream in the midst of a fitful sleep that reveals what the subconscious desires to tell but just so in a gentle twist, lest the naked truth in the full light of day may be too blunt for the sensibilities of an unvarnished purity wanting but for the fiction of a nightmare too horrifying to encounter in real life.

Is the fool in Shakespeare any less witless than the King who divides his empire among vampires who drain the life of a vibrant ego?  Do the words of the court jester that cuts like a knife through the clouded judgment lost in the garments of wealth and power, transcend the loss of comprehension by those who would see the Emperor’s clothes despite the insight of a child who sees the nakedness of truth?  Do we attribute to animals the identical accolades despite their lack of coherent utterances, when they emit sounds of alarm, engage reflexes of caution and take flight ahead of perceivable approaches to dangers hidden beyond?

Most of life is repetitive boredom, sprinkled with the dust of angels golden and shining as they fly above us in the invisible universe of heavenly orbs, and we rarely notice them but for the slight touch of their comforting robes as the wings disturb the calm air or a mischievous poke on that parting of hairs or the baldness unseen but from a singular perspective from atop; and it is in those rare, insightful moments that life becomes worth living because we clearly, unequivocally and with unmitigated resolve understand, comprehend and care.

Then, the world and its artificial constructs rush right back in to fill the void of monotony, and we carry on with the projects of life that detract and distract, forgetting again the beauty of that which we saw for a brief slice of time.  Thus, the numerous stories of those who briefly crossed the demarcation into the netherworld of death and beyond, but were brought back to “life” by medical specialists who wanted to do “good”, when even that perspective is, at best, questionable.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are contemplating 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, it is often the medical condition itself that compels one to have a moment of epiphany.  Perhaps that rare, insightful moment comes about when the pain becomes unbearable, or when the cognitive faculties become askew and mental clarity sees beyond into the netherworld of the future and its gloomy horizon.

Whatever the circumstances that monotony of chronic medical conditions forces, the realization that the Federal or Postal employee must by necessity prepare, formulate and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is one which cannot be avoided, any more than the angel who playfully shaves one side of our face in the twilight of dawn and leaves us wondering about those rare, insightful moments of life’s mysteries.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Writing another’s life

It is all well and good to write the narrative of one’s life, and to live it in accordance with the prose and poetry (or lack thereof) which we embrace; but to write another’s life — it makes one pause, hesitate and move with trepidation.  For, we ask ourselves:  Of what right do we have?  Is that best for the other person?  We make such a mess of our own lives; what burden of responsibility must we undertake in order to shoulder the writing of another’s life?  But that is precisely what we do when we have children, isn’t it?

Without any direction, few examples (assuming the author is one of the fortunate ones who had good parents in which to mirror a paradigm of reflective and transference of constructive behavior), and certainly no blueprint to follow, we blindly accept the unformed clay of humanity’s beginnings, and assume the responsibility of creating and conforming an unfinished product to determine the future course of one’s community, the greater society, and the historical relevance of an expanding civilization.

Gee, that sounds easy enough.  And though we may have made complete messes of our own lives, we somehow believe that we have “rights” and first privileges when it comes to control, command and conforming consolidation concerning creativity confounding colorful conceptual constructs in casting the mold (sorry, but the alliteration didn’t hold for the last couple of words in the sequence).

Then, of course, there comes a time when such narration of another’s upbringing begins to recede, until finally, cessation through maturity, rebelliousness or separation of ways comes to fruition; and the next generation of messes left undone continues in a perpetural progression of regressive deterioration.

Prison workers and correctional officers must feel this way, as they are daily attempting to write the life of others by restraining and reformulating (or trying to) those very failures that were allowed because of priority of rights.  But beyond raising children, how many of us possess the opportunity, or responsibility, of writing another’s life, and if we do, how seriously do we undertake that project?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must file 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 writing of another’s life must be undertaken despite that “other” life being one’s own.

In doing so, objectivity must be embraced, and this is often a difficult task, if not an impossible one.  For, in formulating a Federal Disability Retirement case, the narration of proving one’s evidence by a preponderance of the evidence must reflect a standard of objectivity on SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, and must not meander into a diatribe of one’s own musings and meaningless messes.

Writing one’s own life is difficult enough; writing another’s life, when that other life is the one which is owned by one’s own life, is beyond being a writer’s hardship, but a necessity nonetheless if the Federal or Postal worker wants to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through OPM.  But, then, we were all great successes as parents, weren’t we?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer: Preemptive Actions

Knowledge can be a dangerous commodity; partial, or little knowledge, can be all the more damaging, precisely because actions can result based upon incomplete information and slices of factually curtailed composites.

The Court of the Appeals for the Federal Circuit has previously pointed out one of the methodological deficiencies engaged in by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in its review and determination of Federal Disability Retirement cases:  of focusing upon that which is not included in a Federal Disability Retirement application, as opposed to reviewing the information of what has been received.

Such a distinction may be a subtle one, and a difference which can be easily overlooked, but it reveals much more than mere word-play.  For, what it manifests is an application of a criteria based upon an erroneous assumption, and one which continues to be applied to this day, despite case-law which admonishes OPM to the contrary.

Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, a 2007 Federal Court of Appeals case, points out the error of OPM’s ways in Federal Disability Retirement cases, where insistence upon “objective” medical evidence continues to dominate, despite the lack of such requirement to the contrary.  Such an issue is especially relevant, of course, in cases where psychiatric medical conditions prevail, and when OPM insists upon the lack of such “objective” medical evidence where none can be obtained, it leads to Federal and Postal employees to react desperately in a preemptively unreasonable frenzy of actions.

Not knowing the law is one thing; knowing, but deliberately ignoring it, is quite another.  But the price Federal and Postal employees pay for when a bureaucracy engages in practices which clearly defy the clear mandate of legal requirement, results in preemptive actions which ultimately lead to another day in Court, to argue that which one thought was previously already established.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Attorney: The Second, Reconsideration Stage

It is not a reflection upon the validity of one’s medical condition; a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management can mean multiple things, not the least of which may include:  insufficient proof failing to rise to the level of satisfying the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Federal Disability Retirement applications are compiled in a myriad of manners; yes, the standard forms themselves tend to compel a certain semblance of conformity, but ultimately the strength of a case will depend upon the supportive documentation attached, and here is “the rub”:  there still exists the “human element” in the reviewing analysis of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Yes, certain sets of legal criteria are applied (but who and how are they interpreted in their application?); and while satisfaction of the legal criteria is supposed to be determined by the general principle of “preponderance of the evidence“, who and what complies with meeting such a standard?  How is such satisfaction determined?  Such questions, of course, imply a human element in the administrative process of an OPM Disability Retirement review, and whether we like it or not, reveals an underlying connection to imperfection and fallibility.

There is no mathematical algorithm of mechanistic applications which will completely correct the underlying problems inherent in human review within the context of a bureaucratic process.  Fortunately, however, the process itself contains a self-corrective device: different stages and levels of review, which allows for the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker to provide additional supportive documentation in order to reinforce and strengthen one’s Federal Disability Retirement case.

There are limitations, however, and that is why “corrective action” at the Second, Reconsideration Stage of the administrative process of Federal Disability Retirement is just that — it is to “correct” the mistakes, lapses and inherent lack identified in the original Federal Disability Retirement packet.  The “limitations” are set by law, and are determined by how one characterizes one’s medical conditions in the Statement of Disability as perpetuated on SF 3112A.

Care should always be taken, of course, in the initial preparation of a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, and before it is forwarded through one’s agency to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  But in the end, one must recognize that the entirety of the administrative process is one which involves multiple stages of a bureaucratic procedure, and the Second, Reconsideration Stage is merely another level of self-regulating refinement to ensure that the human element, including mistakes and misapplication of the law, is expunged to the extent possible, and instead, that the objective application of the law is uniformly dispensed in order to reach a statistically acceptable algorithm of fairness and impartial determination.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire