OPM Retirement for Mental or Physical Incapacity: Citing cases

The strength of a case is not further reinforced by the mere citing of legal precedents; rather, it is the use of the substantive application that makes for persuasive argumentation.  Often, cases are cited in a dizzying plethora of listings, of names and titles of legal opinions amassed in greater paragraphs of listings to impress upon the garnered support of the legal opinions allegedly providing for an unsurmountable wall of irrefutable authority; but upon further inspection, many of the cases are merely regurgitations of prior opinions and precedents, and add nothing to the substantive force of the point trying to be made.

Good things are “good” because of the goodness within them, but when one begins to believe that “goodness” comes not from the element of goodness but from the quantity instead of the quality, then we all fall into the self-contradictory trap of utilitarianism, where we fail to recognize that too much of something destroys the very goodness engendered by the good.

Just ask the kid who ate a gallon of ice cream and sat on the toilet seat for an hour with a stomach ache — whether ice cream taken to meeting one’s imagination of what heaven encompasses is still “good” in quantities that have no limitations.

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, the process of amassing the complex information in order to “argue” one’s Federal Disability Retirement application should, at a minimum, include the citing of “basic” cases found in “The Law”.

This is necessary in order to reinforce the justification that one’s Federal Disability Retirement application is supported by the legal precedents that have held sway for decades on end.  Citing cases is important; citing the right cases is even more important; citing the relevant cases is very important; citing the relevant and significant cases and arguing as to why they are being cited — now, that is the most important approach of all.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer Representation for OPM Disability Retirement: The time watcher

How many times (stated in the numerical sense) do we watch the time (in the alternative sense)?  Do we waste time by keeping an eye on time, or is it prudent because it forces us to maintain a “schedule” or mandate a strict adherence to a regimen of activities to be performed, chores to have accomplished and work to be completed?  Does watching time save time or merely waste it?

Say a person keeps looking at his watch (or is this in and of itself an anachronism, now, as everyone merely lights up the smart phone which has made wrist watches outmoded?), and you notice that he does so systematically — say, every 5 – 10 minutes.  Then, at precisely 5 o’clock, he gets up from his desk, puts on his coat and leaves the office.  You realize that for the past hour, all that this person had been doing was to check the time in anticipation of leaving at a certain time.  Whether any actual work was completed; whether the watching of time contributed to any productivity, etc., is of relevance, are they not?

For, the time watcher watches the time pass, and it matters as to the reason underlying the very watching of time.  It one watches the time in order to meet a deadline, say, or pace one’s self in a race, etc., then does it make it more productive than if one simply waits for the last hour to pass in order to go on to something else?

Time watching is certainly something which we all do, but as to its usefulness will often depend upon the reason why it is engaged — as in, for “negative” purposes, like “passing the time” in order for a specific moment to arrive, or for “positive” reasons, as in monitoring the passing of time while engaging in a certain type of activity, etc.  The harmless activity of time watching becomes magnified in exaggerated form when the very “watching” itself becomes the central activity — sort of like the notion of “we live with the expectation of dying”.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who realize that one’s times are “numbered” (both in the numerical sense as well as in a metaphorical usage) because of one’s medical condition that prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it may be time to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal Service worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the watchful time watcher who watches as others whittle away the time wondering whether the next harassing initiation of an administrative sanction will be imposed by the agency, or of the watchful waiting to see if you fail to meet the standards of an imposed PIP — watching the time pass to see if you can make it to retirement age or time-in-service computation is no way to live.

If a medical condition is impacting your ability to perform the essential elements of your job, it is time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  It is time — or past the time — to merely think about it; rather, it is now time to act, and not remain as a passive time watcher, but to take the reigns of time and become the time watcher with a purpose.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Trivial Pursuit

The game itself apparently reached its peak of popularity in the mid-80s.  What is so fascinating about playing the game, was that the very person who attained the highest success at it was often admired as “smart”, “intelligent” or otherwise brilliant in intellectual prowess; and yet, the name of the game itself should immediately undermine that stellar coronation of earned consolation, if by just the mere fact of admitting to possessing such tropes and tripe of information in globs of voluminous detail.

Is the thought-process as follows:  Those who have such an excess and overflow of knowledge must be smarter than the rest of us precisely because, to know such ancillary details, he or she must have a greater pool and wealth of wisdom such that the overflow is reflected in the triviality of the aggregate?  Or, is it that we presume knowledge – any knowledge – can be counted by quantity, and not by quality of technical output?  Why would the capacity and talent of being able to respond to irrelevancy constitute a basis for admiration?  And where does the line begin and end – that demarcation between knowledge and wisdom, health versus destructive fetish, or curiosity as opposed to a prurient obsession?

It reminds of the scene from one of Woody Allen’s movies, where the future wife-killer invites the couple to their apartment and begins talking to the nervous character about his stamp collection – a detail which the guest neither is interested in, nor has the slightest curiosity to pursue, and instead does his best to avoid the subject and escape without being too blatantly rude in the process.  Or of the interest and hobby which leads to a career, or perhaps a successful marketing venture, as opposed to that which merely consumes one’s time and energy in wasteful degeneration of selfish delight; is there a difference, and what marks the distinction?

There is, of course, that perennial martyrdom of defining the “trees for the forest”, or the “big picture” in contrast to the details – like that scene where the Feds are pursuing Al Capone based upon a general knowledge of his high crimes and massive illegal conspiracies, but from the corner squeaks the voice of a mousy agent with wire-rimmed glasses who suggests getting him on a technicality of tax evasion; no, it is not quite as romantic a basis, but it gets the job done.  And what of technicalities in all arenas of law –  can one presume them to be trivial pursuits, or of utilizing the details in order to win a case where others have seen only the wider expanse of unseen legal maneuvers?

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who thinks that preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is tantamount to a trivial pursuit, the endeavor itself should be reviewed afresh.  For, while the nexus between one’s medical condition and the positional duties which comprise the aggregate of one’s essential elements must be pursued in order to establish that connection to meet the eligibility requirements for a successful Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it is never a trivial matter when one is discussing the stability and security of one’s future.

In the end, it is the “details” which make the difference, and in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application on behalf of the Federal or Postal employee, the attorney who assists in the Federal Disability Retirement application must always recognize that the trivial pursuit of the wider world at large is often the core foundation of the substantive content which comprises an effective OPM Disability Retirement application, and no details should be ignored in that pursuance of excellence in a Federal Disability Retirement case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement under FERS/CSRS: Of bad people

Is there any good in people, anymore?  Is it even relevant to distinguish between “good” and “bad”?  Yes, yes – I know; it is a devious thing to entitle a piece with one concept, then begin the discussion by embracing its antonym – a device often used by newspapers, periodicals, and short story writers of the dubious set and genre of unfashionable alternatives.  But more to the point:  in a universe and culture where moral judgments are no longer acceptable, and where equivalence of distinctions have been concretized except by religious zealots and society’s cultish outcasts, can the contradistinctions between the two have any significance or relevance for conceptual paradigms incommensurate with prior such models (to borrow a well-worn phrase by Thomas Kuhn) in order to retain any meaningful posit?

There is an inherent acknowledgment that if we ascribe a negative principle or connotation to a word, that two things must necessarily denote a contingent precedent:  First, that it is distinguishable from everything else in the universe (otherwise, if it cannot be, then everything becomes nothing, and therefore loses its efficacy of meaning); and Second, that its opposite must embrace an aura of equally virulent affirmation, lest the antonym be nothing more than a synonym of choice.

But if “goodness” is a mere societal convention constructed in the artifice of false religious histories, where idols, gods and angels once occupied now have formed a continent of mythologies no longer believed in but for those quaint societies in outlands visited by tourists who purchase trinkets for show and Instagram opportunities, then being “bad” cannot have any ascription of meaningful prose, anymore.

“Goodness” meant something, at one point; there were common threads throughout, and societal values could agree implicitly, without vocalized necessitation of explanatory expositions, and the questioning itself would bring quizzical looks of suspicion and concern, not only for the finite soul for mortality’s sake, but because to query of such self-evident devices was to presume a sort of insanity manifested against the tides of normalcy.

In modernity, of course, the antithesis is accepted:  to make a moral judgment is to be intolerant, and that is the greatest crime of all.  Yet, that in and of itself is an anomaly, because as sins are presumed to be no longer fashionable because of the Biblical context surrounding, so “good” and “evil” (or “badness”) are no longer acceptable terms.  We cannot judge, because judging requires a prerequisite of an intolerant nature, and tolerance is the reflective definition of goodness in modernity.  So, we must suffer evil in silence, and remain neutral as to the angels who visit us when misfortune arrives.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must suffer through the employment arena knowing the hogwash of neutrality where we never judge and never appear intolerant, we witness the height of hypocrisy in the behavior of the “good” people against those with medical conditions and disabilities.

And so we have to prepare 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, because to remain at the Federal Agency or U.S. Postal Service would, again, turn the conceptual artifices upside down, where the “good” have been deemed no longer so, and the “bad” are those who seek to be accommodated, or stick around too long and irritate the “good” people of the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service, which is a “bad” thing that “good” people should not be allowed to do, because it is a good bad thing in a bad good world.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Character Deficits

We all have them; we just never like to admit them to others (which, of course, becomes unnecessary and an irrelevancy if one has a spouse, who is more than willing with energetic bluntness and zeal to volunteer as the one to point them out, quite vocally at that, and without a hint of jealousy at not having them, and with a fury of warning looks darting at crosswinds if one dares to suggest otherwise).  Whether by deep in the recesses of forgotten caverns of childhood psyche damaged in the whirlwinds of growing up, or infected by osmosis by bad company in good times, we will never know.

Freudians believe in such origins within the occipital lobe (or was that post-Freudian or Jungian?); and Aristotle believed in the irrelevancy of such judgments until late in one’s life; but at every stage of a linear progression in life’s trials, we recognize the negation of perfection, and that is clearly represented by the mirror image of the ruling animal of this earth.

Most of us battle throughout our lives – not so much to correct the deficiencies, but to deny, rebut and otherwise patch over any allegations and prosecutorial insinuations that we have them.  In other words, we worry more about the appearance of reputation, as opposed to the essence of the core by which we exist, and to that extent, Plato was right in directing our attention to the universality of Forms, thereby concentrating our attention upon extrapolated natures and thus allowing for the conversation of human folly to be engaged in by third-person accounts and objectified measures.

Otherwise, if we look too closely to the glare of our own reflection, the ugliness of a magnified being would be too much to bear.  Has there ever been a time in history when man held closely to the self-realization of such negations of angelic features?  Perhaps when the onerous hand of belief, the days of torture in Seville when the Grand Inquisitor roamed the homes of suspected idolatry (and spurred the imagination which produced Dostoevsky’s masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov); but even then, we all reserve our suspicions that the closeted man was just as evil, just as mischievous and likely more so in the veil of virtue and virulent self-flagellation against vices known or otherwise hidden.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who experience the modern version of a witch-hunt, it is time to prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application in order to escape the wrath of the Agency’s predatory appetite.  The U.S. Postal Service and the Federal Agency are predatory animals who can sniff out the scent of weakened prey; and as the Federal or Postal employee, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, who has a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing all of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, necessarily becomes the focus of attention, it becomes an inevitability that issues involving character deficits will arise.

From the agency’s standpoint:  No longer the competent golden boy or wonder girl, but suddenly faults abound and in endless streams of negative assessments.  From the Federal or Postal employee’s perspective:  The continuing battle to prove ourselves.  Is it all worth it?  Or is it just another character deficit that we have to contend with, as we have been doing all of our tireless lives?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Deferred hope unrealized

Hope is a necessary component to life.  When one is born, there are rarely instructional manuals which accompany the organic package of severed umbilical cord, amniotic fluid, blood and plasma formed by hydrostatic forces beyond ordinary knowledge or wisdom; the entity appears, and we are left to our own devices.  But “life” cannot exist in a vacuum, though we are forged by admonitions that the tough road ahead should be traveled with fortitude, “rugged individualism” (whatever that is), and independence tantamount to abandonment.

Somehow, to live separately, away from one’s family and unit of security, is the mark of “maturity” in the West, whereas the rest of the world recognizes that the essence and value of hope lay not in separation, but within the bosom of a caring community.  And so we defer the one component which becomes a necessary essence in order to strive onward:  hope.

Hope deferred means that there is a hope upon a hope; that, one day, in some faraway land in fairytales which garner and engender a twinkle of faith in a world without charity, love or the emotional health of civilizations now lost and torn apart, we may stumble upon that which we had to delay in order to maintain our sanity.

And so we engage in those distracting projects which Heidegger pointed out (yes, that very same philosopher who took up the cause of the Third Reich, whether because of fear or belief in a false mythology that promised nothing but black boots, destruction and toil by fear) those many years ago, where avoidance of the ultimate terminus of Being is why we descend into inane conversations of untimely concerns.

Which is also why the loss of innocence so early in life, where fairytales and mythologies once enjoyed have been replaced in modernity by stories barely masked as propaganda and indoctrination, is the pathway towards despair; no longer of glass slippers or castles in the sky, but of political correctness and belief in the system of ideologies; for, a society fragmented can only retain its semblance of sanity by keeping the masses in a dazed opioid of tethered slumber.

It is when the mature realization hits us that the deferred hope – which is a hope-upon-hope – will likely remain unrealized, thus undermining the prefatory hope and debasing the foundational hope, that angst, despair and despondency sets in.  Until that moment, we have that thin thread of faith in a fragile collection of psychic composite, barely held together by some miracle of superglue, yet enough to keep us motivated in a society filled with vacuity of hopelessness in a deep chasm of endless travesties.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal workers whose career is about to be cut short by a medical condition, such that the medical condition necessitates the preparation, formulation and filing of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the deferred hope of attaining a semblance of health and reversal of sleep deprivation may be gotten by the steps taken towards an OPM filing.

If there is yet a deferred hope unrealized, it may be time – whether the Postal or Federal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset – to actualize that potentiality left in a well of past procrastination, by preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, thus realizing that hope once deferred, and now within grasp and sight of embracing a promising future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire