OPM FERS/CSRS Disability Retirement: Sequential Propriety

In many societies and cultures which still consider social protocol of applicable importance, correctness and orderly rectitude must be followed in rigorous detail.  It is the process itself which constitutes substantive relevance, and not merely the ritual itself.

Thus, for example, engaging in the details of business dealings prior to enjoying a meal, or bringing up the subject of a disputed issue during a meal or in the presence of family members, may be a violation of such social protocol as to justify irreparable severance of any future business dealings.  Sequence of actions, tested and applied over decades and centuries of norms developed through cultural screens of human institutions guided by sensitivities impacted by trial and error, retain a purpose beyond the mere folly of observable appearances scoffed at by foreigners to the cultural protocol.

For those who are unfamiliar to the importance of such subtleties, a singular breach may invite a fury of cold shoulders resulting from the rudeness of misunderstandings. For the Federal and Postal Worker who is considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is something to take note of. Not in the sense of social protocol; rather, in the lessons which can be gleaned from the importance of sequential application.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, it is important to recognize that proper sequence of compiling the evidence and presenting one’s case can be crucial in the successful filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  Doing things “out of step’ can result in preemptively harming one’s own OPM Disability Retirement application.

Whether it is like the proverbial gaffes of, for example, “letting the cat out of the bag”, or “speaking out of turn”, one should always take seriously the relevance and importance of social protocol as a cultural phenomena which contains a logical basis, and is not merely a compendium of silly rules garnered to make outsiders uncomfortable; rather, proper sequence and protocol of actions often teaches us that how one performs the process itself is just as important as the end product for which we strive.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Correlation, Correspondence & Causation

How we assert and connect disparate facts reveals the extent of one’s understanding of the conceptual distinctions to be made between correlation, correspondence and causation.

Correlation, in its normative usage, refers to the relationship between two or more things, and will often involve statistical dependence between entities.

Correspondence, on the other hand, will entail the agreement of one or more things with one another, or encapsulate similarities and reflective agreement.  Thus, one may discuss Russell’s and Moore’s “correspondence theory of truth“, for instance, where the proposed argument would involve the “agreement” between what one says, and its reflection upon the objective world which it is attempting to describe.

Causality, as a distinctive concept from the other two Cs, involves the sequential occurrence of one event followed by another, where the second event is accepted as a consequence of the first.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to understand the conceptual distinctions between these words, precisely because the Federal and Postal employee formulating the nexus between one’s medical condition and one’s position description must show the relationship between the two.

Thus, one may argue that a correlation exists between poor performance and one’s medical condition; or one may establish that the corresponding actions on the part of the agency involved references to medical reports and records; or that the position itself caused the exacerbation of the medical condition — although, the latter may be more relevant in a Federal Worker’s Comp case.

In arguing for eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, use of all of the linguistic tools available will provide a decided advantage; but usage must be preceded by understanding, and understanding must involve the careful analysis of the specialized application of conceptual constructs.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: Basic Approaches

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, it is always best to begin the formulation and preparation of a case by attending to the basic approaches.

Complexity of a case should not be inherently obvious.  The ease with which the professional in any field of activity makes such an activity appear to the spectator, is merely an attestation of the time and preparation expended.  

If a case is so complex that the Federal or Postal employee is unable to convey the interactive bridge between the symptoms and diagnosed medical conditions, and the type of positional duties which one must be able to function at, then how is the Claims Representative at the Office of Personnel Management going to be able to comprehend such complexity which the Applicant himself/herself is unable to effectively delineate and describe?  

Extraneous complexities, outside issues, peripheral concerns, and intra-agency squabbles, including allegations of discrimination, unequal treatment, etc., are normally irrelevancies which must be forced from the center of a Federal Disability Retirement case, to a mere passing footnote, if that.

Remember that one does not want to be pigeonholed into asserting a “situational disability” claim, which is a valid basis to be denied in a Federal Disability Retirement application.  Keep things simple. Approach the case with the basics in mind.  Formulate the nexus between one’s medical conditions and one’s positional duties.  Always keep in mind the essence of a case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: The Approach

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS from the Office of Personnel Management, one should always make the conceptual distinction between an “entitlement” and an “eligible benefit”.  

Federal Disability Retirement benefits fall into the latter category.  However, because the technical distinction between an “entitlement” and an “eligible benefit” is often not made, or not thought of, the approach in preparing and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application becomes problematic and fraught with defects.  

In speaking with various Federal and Postal employees who are contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, one often hears the case that his or her particular disability retirement application is “a sure thing,” or that the “medical evidence shows that it’ll sail through.” 

While self-confidence is an admirable quality, approaching a Federal Disability Retirement application with the idea that the benefit is tantamount to an entitlement because of the strength of meeting the applicable burden of proof, is what is popularly referred to as, “A recipe for disaster”.

When a Federal Disability Retirement application is reviewed by the Office of Personnel Management, it is never a sure thing.  It must be carefully prepared and presented, and any amount of taking an issue or element of the application for granted is a foolhardy perspective.  

Self-confidence should arise after a good piece of work has been accomplished; and, even then, one should always be prepared to engage in a protracted battle.  After all, the eligible benefit of Federal Disability Retirement is worth fighting for, in order to secure one’s physical, mental, and financial future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire