FERS Medical Retirement: The Divide Between Self and Reality

Despair often comes when the chasm between consciousness of self (as opposed to self-consciousness) and the reality which, upon even a moment’s pause, one realizes — goes beyond the divide of acceptability.

That is why the whole endeavor of “self-esteem” — which generally began sometime in the second and third generations after WWII’s fighting men came home and married and started families — was a delicate and consequential conundrum.  Yes, kids needed to have a positive self-esteem; however, the question was, how best to instill it?  Was self-esteem the substance for the thing itself, or was it a byproduct of one’s accomplishments?

Modern educators opted for the former; and that is why, today, Americans are first in self-esteem but last in knowledge.  For, when the divide between self and reality grows too expansive, the consequence is that we come to realize that we are empty shells, fabricators, and imposters within a world of reality.

Of course, we all fashion narratives which either leave out some negative history, or add to it in the best light possible.  The truth of a person described to others is mostly a hodgepodge of make-believe, and it is only when the unexpected visit from the cousin or other sibling refutes the historical narrative of fairytales told when that divide between self and reality comes to the fore.

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 divide between self and reality is told thus: “My medical conditions are not that serious; I can just quietly ignore it and continue on.”  But then, the day comes when the divide between the narrative told and the reality foretold grows too expansive.

That is the time to contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin to initiate the process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application under the FERS system, which will hopefully close that chasm of the growing divide between self and reality.

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.

 

Postal & Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Bumpy Road Ahead

Life is always a rough-hewn piece of wood; and yes, while the grains may possess and reveal beauty, and sanding or polishing may bring out the inner, granular quality which depicts the artistry of nature, still — the bumpy road ahead remains just around the corner.

Sometimes, you see two young people in a cafe gazing dreamily into each other’s eyes, and you have to resist going up to them, slapping them gently over their heads in order to awaken them from the unreality of the moment.  Or, perhaps the better approach is to leave things alone — as life is full of problems and disappointments, let them have their respite of escape from the harshness of reality.

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 his or her Federal or Postal job, the bumpy road ahead likely includes the fight against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in getting a FERS Disability Retirement application approved.

It is always a fight.  And like the rough-hewn piece of wood, it takes hard work to get past the splinters and obstacles before the “beauty” part can be reached.  Contact a lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and let the specialist handle the bumpy road ahead.

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 & Postal Disability Retirement: The Conveyor Belt

Some marriages are like that; life, in general, often feels of a like manner; and ultimately the question becomes: How does one get off of it?

The conveyor belt takes an item, a medium or some product along the way on rotating wheels that endlessly spin.  Once on, the entity presumably reaches a destination point, at least in factories or stores that maintain and run them.  But the metaphor of a conveyor belt evokes an image of an infinite quality: once on, unless you are the operator of the system, there is no turning it off.  Some people become involved in relationships that feel like a conveyor belt; others, into divorces where neither party is excited about it, but nevertheless go along with it because there are irreconcilable differences that cannot be resolved.

Medical conditions, too, fit the metaphor of the conveyor belt — for, once a condition appears, it is most certainly merely a symptom of something greater, and the vast conveyor belt of the medical complex — of medication regimens, surgical intervention, therapeutic involvement, etc., all serve to place you upon the conveyor belt of no return.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who feel like their lives are on a conveyor belt upon which there appears to be no return because of a medical condition that prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of his or her Federal or Postal job duties, it may be time to consider getting off from the “conveyor belt” and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Consult with a Federal Disability Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law and consider stopping the conveyor belt that seems to be taking you down a path that is no longer a destination of your choosing.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Early Retirement for Disabled Federal Workers: The approximation

How do we learn to approximate?  Or, more approximately, how do we learn when it is appropriate (or inappropriate) to approximate?

When and how did we learn that there is a distinction with a difference between an engineer constructing a tall building and a chef adding a few more spices than what the recipe calls for — that consequences derived from the difference between approximation and precision make a world of difference?  Or even the amateur chef in mistaking a sprinkle of salt for a cupful, or of a judge in the Olympics who shrugs his or her shoulders and says, “close enough”, when the difference between a fraction of a second or an approximation thereof means the awarding of a gold, silver or bronze medal?

How close is the enemy?  Approximately a mile or so away, give or take a few hundred yards…could mean the difference between victory or defeat.

How old is the earth?  Multi-billions of years, give or take a few, or count the genealogy of religious texts and multiply them accordingly.  Any consequences for believing one paradigm over another, and aren’t both merely approximations, anyway?  How precise can a science be when the claim is made that X is 500 billions years old?  Could it not be 499 or 498 billion years old, instead?  In terms of percentages of being “off”, it is minor; but in gross numbers, a billion here or a billion there could mean quite a difference; just look at the investors of Facebook who recently lost a good portion of their portfolio.

Approximations are fine, but they need to be tempered by conditions and circumstances, and for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer 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, to “approximate” where precision is required may not be the best approach in putting together one’s Federal Disability Retirement application.

Of course, “the law” is never a precise endeavor, and cannot come close to requiring an engineer’s reliance upon mathematical calculations nor even of an architect’s blueprint for constructing an archway.

However, precision of legal argumentation; proper wording of medical narratives; careful positing of legal citations — these are all approximations which, in their aggregate, accord a greater precision in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in enhancing the greater chance of an approval for each stage of the process, as it is precisely the greater approximation of precision that allows for lessening the imprecision of that which comes closest to the approximation of a science in a non-scientific discipline.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: The clinical language

The antiseptic nature of language allows for the euphemism of linguistic cloaking to occur.  The corollary effect, however, is that it fails to provide a nexus to the humanity lost, and allows for an arrogance of language by imparting its distance and separation from warmth.

Clinical language has that characteristic, steeped in the mysterious and archaic history of Gregorian chants at altars once embodying the Eucharist’s theological secrets of transubstantiation with the priesthood undulating in phrases foreign to ears of modernity; and from that same pocket of incomprehensible linguistic sophistication that only New Englanders like Buckley and other intellectuals would bandy about with phrases we all nod at as if we understood them, comes the cold, clinical language that doctors, nurses and psychiatrists use in diagnosing conditions beyond the mere commoner’s ability to realize.

The clinical language bifurcates and objectifies; it is a way of keeping the discussion on a level of discourse where human emotions need not enter, will not intercede, and cannot invade through the impenetrable walls of the rational side of the brain.  Perhaps there is a need for that; a want, a desire and a worthiness to maintain that distance, so that the topics delineated, explained and obfuscated can be accomplished without the emotional turmoil of those consequences resulting from the realization that one is damaged goods beyond repair.

In the end, however, when the patient goes back home, discusses it with family, friends and close relations, the interpretive process must by necessity be utilized.

In former times, dictionaries were taken out, root words were defined and the Latin phrases whispered in secret murmurings of incantations incomprehensible were untangled, discerned and disassembled.  In modernity, we Google them and have the algorithm of computer intelligence in sunny California interpret the words for us to digest.  Then, the translation into the emotive language of kitchen-held talks in hushed tones where children strain to listen from stairwells around the corner; and tears wept, confidences given and lost, and the upheavals of families in crisis where the clinical language has been demythologized and demystified so that even the everyday person can recognize the human toil of a ravaged body and mind.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, whether that medical condition has been diagnosed in clothing termed by the clinical language used by the medical profession, or already interpreted in common everyday usage, the plan is to prepare an effective, understandable, cogent and coherent Federal Disability Retirement application, and one that can bridge that gap from phrases barely comprehensible to linguistic descriptions that present a viable case.

Doctor’s reports and office notes, clinical narratives and treatment records are all useful and necessary, but in order to create that legal nexus of presenting a persuasive argument and meeting the standard of proof of preponderance of the evidence in a Federal Disability Retirement application, it is always a good idea to interpret and translate that clinical language into a delineation that touches upon the everyday emotions common to us all, by breaking down the bifurcated walls and allowing for the warmth of humanity to pervade the narrative of life.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: False Positives

We demand that a “retest” be done, to ensure that the result did not have the opposite effect.  It is a linguistic conundrum that the affirmative means its negative; for, in medicine, a “positive” result is the worst of news, whereas in most every other context, it is a welcomed declarative.  But because it is a result which is not embraced with delight, we ask that it be further verified in the event that the “positive” is a false one, and we want it instead to not be a true one, and thus ask for a retest in order to see whether the second one will result in a true negative, which is the opposite of a true positive in hopes that the first positive result is a false one.

Are there such similar circumstances in daily life, apart from the medical field, where we received results of false positives?  The latter term in the phrase is misleading, precisely because laudatory declaratives are normally welcoming additions; yet, combined with the former word that essentially negates the latter, it is an oxymoron of sorts and is thus relegated to a defined field in the medical arena.

But false positive do rear their ugly heads now and again; in employment, where awards and exuberant encouragement are provided with nary a compensatory incentive, giving the impression that the company recognizes the employee as a valued asset, all the while withholding that most coveted of advancements – the “raise”.

That is surely a “false positive” that needs to be retested.

Or, of loyalty seemingly accorded by a Federal agency or the U.S. Postal worker, so long as productivity is met and the “mission of the agency” is placed on a priority basis, where long and uncompensated hours, both in physical presence and cognitive input when exhaustion from work, worries and problem solving overwhelm and consecrate; but when it really “counts”, does the concept of loyalty allow for bilateralism, or was it merely a one-way street:  Your loyalty to the Federal Agency or the Postal Service, in return for a false positive?

Is filing a Federal Disability Retirement application considered a “false positive”?  Or even in an inverted sense – it is “positive” because it is a benefit which is available when (often) all other options have failed; it is purportedly “false” because it means giving up one’s career and being presented with a future with less income.

But it can also possess an inverted meaning –  of a false positive because it is an a recognition that the medical condition has come to a point where an admission must be made:  the falsity of hope in relying upon the Federal Agency or U.S. Postal Service to reward one’s undiminished loyalty these many years and decades, would result in an accommodation of the medical condition, combined with a sense of positive outlook for the future because of this past reliance.

No – unfortunately, such a false positive would surely have to be retested, and the result would be that, yes, the false positive of having the ability to prepare, formulate and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is indeed a true positive that is there to be accessed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: The 31-day Rule

Once a Federal Disability Retirement application has been prepared and formulated, the next step in the equation is to determine the proper destination for filing.

For all Federal and Postal employees, whether under FERS or CSRS, if one is still on the rolls of the agency, whether on Sick Leave, Annual Leave, receiving donated leave, or on LWOP, if separation from service has not occurred, then the Disability Retirement packet must go through either the local or district Human Resources Office of the Agency for further processing.  The Office of Personnel Management will not accept a Federal Disability Retirement application directly from the applicant, if the Federal or Postal worker filing for such benefits has not yet been separated from Federal Service.

For Postal employees, a further caveat concerning “separation” should be taken into account:  Often, the U.S. Postal Service will continue to retain workers on the rolls, even after proposing to remove them, and often even after issuing a decision letter on a removal.  A good indicator as to whether a Postal Worker is still on the rolls of the U.S. Postal Service is if the individual is still receiving “0” balance pay stubs.  This likely means that the person is still officially “on the rolls” of the U.S. Postal Service.

Further, while many Federal (non-postal) workers continue to have the benefit of a local Human Resources Office, or an assigned district H.R. Office, for the U.S. Postal Service employee, all Federal Disability Retirement applications must be processed through the H.R. Shared Services Center in Greensboro, N.C.

If a person has been separated from Federal Service for more than thirty one (31) days, then the former Federal or Postal Worker must file his or her Federal Disability Retirement application directly with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Thus, the first priority is to prepare and formulate a Federal Disability Retirement application; next, to ensure compliance with the 1-year statute of limitations; and finally, to file it via the proper channels.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Agency Procedures

It is an argument which cannot be won, and one which is avoided, if possible, but nevertheless I find myself engaged in from time to time.  It is the argument of one’s historical background, and whether one has the viable power to justify the improper action (or inaction), and it goes something like this:  “The Agency requires that…”   Response:  “Yes, but that is not what the Office of Personnel Management requires, and it is OPM who is the final arbiter in the matter.”  “Well, that may be, Mr. ___, but I have been doing this for over 10 years and that’s the way it’s always been done.”  Response:  “Well, I have been doing this for over ___”   “We are just trying to help.”  Beware of the “helpful” agency.  

In filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, if an individual has not been separated from Federal Service for more than thirty one (31) days, the entire packet must go through the Federal Agency for which the applicant is working or was working.  Even if the separation occurred over 31 days prior to the filing, certain Standard Forms must be obtained from the former agency.  In “dealing” with the Agency, one often gets into the “back-and-forth” game of how a certain procedure needs to be followed, and that is when the childish playground game of “who has the greater historical experience” is often engaged in.  At bottom, it all comes down to a power game.  It is best to avoid it.  It is best to be courteous and civil.  But when the Human Resources person says, “I’m just trying to be helpful,” beware.  You have probably just lost the game.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire