FERS Disability Retirement Application: Even in…

More and more, insanity appears to prevail and pervade everywhere, and thus do we all say, “Even in … “ Even in Japan, gun violence occurs; even in Copenhagen, mass shootings can happen; even in….  Why is it that nothing is ever contained within the locality of the occurrence?

Once upon a time, something which happened in another city, a different town, a far-away village, would only travel via a post-marked letter, with a newspaper clipping inserted within the letter — an envelope received from afar.   Nowadays, everything is instantaneous; for, with the internet, we have become that “global village” which the IT gurus have been pushing for, for so many years.

Will there come a time when some countries ban the use of electronic devices?  When the world of electronic devices were first invented, was a consensus taken, a vote given, a poll requested — as to whether anyone wanted this world?  Or, did the likes of Bills Gates, Steve Jobs and others simply dictate to us all that, whether we liked it or not, technology is here to stay, and all the while they can amass their wealth and laugh at the rest of society?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS because of a medical condition which now prevents the Federal or Postal worker from continuing in his or her career, fortunately, even in the Federal Government, there exists laws which protect the Federal and Postal employee’s rights when a medical disability no longer allows you to continue.

Such disability retirement benefits do not, more often than not, exist in private-sector or even state and municipal jobs.  So, to that extent, one cannot use the term, “Even in a private-sector job”, or “Even in State government jobs”, etc.

Contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, where even in this day and age, the Federal sector provides some good benefits for its employees.

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 Disability Retirement Law: The Mistakes We Make

Do you ever look back on your youth and wonder, Wow, how could I have made those mistakes?  If you escaped some significant and major consequences, then likely Providence was looking over you.  Of stupid dares you accepted; of actions bordering on the illegal; perhaps some reckless outings where the police somehow didn’t notice; or of things we did yet hoping for a reprieve, a reset, a forgiving heart.

Do we regret them?  Not if we escaped the repercussions which have beset others; for, it is in the very foolishness of what we did, of the mistakes we made, but where the natural consequences failed to take hold — that is, quite often, the definition of youthful folly.

Nowadays, of course, such youthful folly has become far from innocence-in-action; death, or serious harm, often results, and we have to pay the consequences of such misdeeds.  Somehow, today’s youthful follies are not like those immature misdeeds of the recent past; instead, they are deadly, and neither “innocent” nor “youthful”.

Then, we one day became adults and youthful follies could no longer be considered as such.  The age of adulthood made you no longer youthful, and certainly not free of liability.

For Federal employees and Postal workers who have come to a critical juncture where serious consideration must be given to preparing, formulating and filing an effective OPM Medical Retirement application under FERS because of a medical condition which no longer allows you to continue in the career of your choice, the mistakes we make in preparing, formulating and filing an effective disability retirement application under FERS can lead to devastating consequences.

No longer can you rely upon excuses of past misdeeds:  Of youth; of ignorance; of innocent lack of knowledge, etc.

Contact an attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law, and don’t let the mistakes we used to make within the jocular other-worldliness of youth and folly become the mainstay of why you are deprived of a disability retirement annuity which should be obtained, but for the mistakes you used to make, and the ones’s you may still make.

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 from OPM: Difficult versus Disabled

To the statement, “I am having greater difficulty in performing X, Y and Z” follows with the query: “But are you still able to?”

There is a conceptual distinction to be made between “difficult” as opposed to “disabled”.  Of course, the former may be an indication which may naturally and progressively lead to the latter, and may merely not be there, yet.

The operative word is “may” (a potentiality of disablement), here, as opposed to an established, present reality.  Or, it may be that the person speaking is misusing the language, and is trying to put the best face forward, and should have stated: “I cannot perform X and Y, and am having difficulty in doing Z”.

Human beings have a wide and strange capacity to endure and to cover things up.  Perhaps the person is having difficulty but no one sees it because he or she is simply “pushing through” and hiding the pain and disability quite well.  Or, perhaps the medical condition has approach a critical juncture where the impact of the medical condition is clearly manifesting itself to a point where Federal Disability Retirement needs to be contemplated.

In any event, the first step in making a valid, objective assessment in considering Federal Disability Retirement under FERS for Federal and Postal employees is to distinguish between “difficult” and “disabled” — where the former may not qualify you for FERS Disability Retirement, while the latter surely would.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal and Postal Medical Retirement Benefits: Operating by Fear

NFL teams do it; other sports teams operate by it; corporations cross over into territories of ethical lapses because of it; and, all in all, it is probably a genetic trait from prehistoric times which triggers us into what is commonly known as “survival mode”.  Fear triggers a biochemical response in our bodies where the rush of adrenaline infuses and sharpens every instinct in our being, and we react in either a “fight” or “flight” mode.  The quick-reaction force that compels our bodies and minds to act in order to overcome the fear, is probably a healthy response, and necessary for survival.

It is when such a mode of living becomes chronic, and where we operate by such means over an extended period of time, that it becomes obsessional and likely unhealthy.  The survival instinct is there within us in order to repel and overcome the flashing lights of danger; it is not meant to become a way of living.

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, if the continuation of your work involves the constant operation of working for fear of losing your job despite the impact of your medical conditions upon the capacity to do so, contact a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and consider whether or not filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits might not be the best avenue to calm those survival instincts, and get rid of that mode of operating by fear.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Life After

Too often, we become embroiled within the context of present circumstances, and come to erroneously believe that what is occurring in our lives today, this minute, this year, will remain as a constancy for the rest of our lives.  Yet, like the weather, politics, and news cycles in general, what is of consequence in our lives today will likely be barely remembered a year from now.

There is always a life after.  Perhaps we are unable to see beyond today; perhaps we fail to — as the proverbial saying goes — see any “light at the end of the tunnel”; and likely the circumstances of today appear so overwhelming and weighty that it consumes our every thought and brings about an imbalance in our perspectives.

Medical conditions tend to do that — they depress us because of the degenerative and deteriorating manner in which they impact us.  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 “life after” is to become a Federal Disability Retirement annuity.

Consult with an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law, and see whether or not you might qualify for a Federal Disability Retirement annuity.  The life after, after all, need not be the same as today or yesterday, but may embrace a future yet hopeful and bright.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: When Snow Becomes a Nuisance

Remember when it was all just fun and laughter?  When waking up and looking out at the furious flakes wind-blown and swirling about, the blanket of pure whiteness just waiting to be gathered, felt, rolled into balls and danced upon with cackles of laughter and uproariously unfettered shivers of joy?

There was a time in all of our childhoods when snow was anticipated, enjoyed, savored and embraced — unless, of course, you grew up in Hawaii or some other tropical paradise where only the imagination, books or some other medium of distantly-experienced phenomena could be viewed.

Then, one day, it became a nuisance.  We know not when, and how, or even the precise moment when the childish delight became a chore; when the fun and chatter became merely a din of distraction; or why the joy of a snowy day became a dreaded day of darkness.  Innocence cannot last forever, and mortality and vulnerability must rear their ugly heads at some point in everyone’s lives.

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 one’s Federal or Postal job, the medical condition and its impact upon one’s life is akin to the day when snow became a nuisance: Health is often taken for granted, but when it is lost, then everything else becomes a dreaded chore and a daily struggle.

Consult with a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and consider preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Employee Disability Retirement application under FERS, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, so that the things which you have lost — like your health and sense of optimism for the future — can be regained, and perhaps even that the snow can be somewhat more than a mere nuisance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Attorney Representation Federal Disability Retirement: Law’s efficacy

When is “the law” effective?  Especially when speaking about an administrative procedure such as filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset – what role does “the law” play in its procedural and substantive aspects?

Multiple distinctions are made on a daily basis with respect to the law’s efficacy; whether something is “legal” or not does not always mean that it is enforceable, for the costs associated may be prohibitively expensive.  To have a “legal right” does not always mean that one should necessarily assert it, for there may be practical considerations that come into play before moving forward with applying that which is rightfully existent.

Further, the mere fact that the law may be “on the books” may not necessarily mean that a society will always raise it up from the dead and apply it; for, as customs and normative constraints alter, modify and become transformed by evolution of thought, it may well be that dogs best left sleeping are the ones who are never bothered.

In Administrative Law – which Federal Disability Retirement issues are a part of – there is always the question as to what role, significant, relevant or somewhat in between, “the law” plays, as many steps throughout the procedure and process must deal with non-lawyers who have no clue as to the existence, force or applicability of legal matters.

Thus, should the “Bruner Presumption” be argued at the initial stage of a Federal Disability Retirement application even though the OPM administrative specialist who is reviewing the Federal or Postal Disability Retirement claim may have no clue about its impact, doesn’t much care and will likely not give much thought to its contextual relevance?

Does Bracey v. OPM matter when discussing the finer points of issues pertaining to accommodations and reassignment, or is that merely some esoteric legal argument that should be reserved for the Third Stage of the process, if and when a Federal Disability Retirement application is denied twice (both at the Initial Stage of the process, as well as at the Second, Reconsideration Stage) and is appealed to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and comes before an Administrative Judge?

Should Simpkins versus OPM always be argued for Veterans with Service-connected ratings, no matter what the ratings are comprised of?

The law’s efficacy is ultimately determined not necessarily by the quantitative bombardment of effective methodological argumentation, but by the qualitative selectiveness of who to argue to, when to argue and for what purpose.  In the end, law’s efficacy is a strategic component that may determine the successful or otherwise outcome of a Federal OPM Disability Retirement application, and should be considered thoughtfully and with great preparation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Stifling rationalism

Although it may no longer show in modernity, it was the dominant methodology accepted as reflecting the Aristotelian belief that man is essentially a rational animal, and thus the general approach towards reaching conclusions should embrace the perspective that the criterion of truth is based upon not sensory, but intellectual and deductive foundations.

But if the thought process fails to utilize the formal laws governing deductive reasoning, and nobody reads Russell or Quine, anyway, what is the difference?  Is it merely an appendage to the conclusion reached, by declaring, “That’s the only logical way to think about this!” – and if we add the exclamation point, state it with a clear and loud voice, does that make it so? What is the distinction to be made, from a valuation or validation viewpoint, between decisions and judgments rendered based upon empirical evidence, deductive or logical reasoning, a combination of both or all three, and the contrast as against an “emotional” basis for reaching conclusions?

If an individual engages in complex futures trading on the stock market, for example, and bases such transactional activities upon unscientific methodologies, is it not the success of the venture (i.e., a retrospective judgment on the matter) that will ultimately determine the success or failure of each approach?

Take the hypothetical of the following: Securities and futures trading can now be done with a laptop from home, and we have Jim, Nancy and Deborah, each of whom thinks that he or she constitutes the brilliance of Wall Street’s best and brightest (though none have had any prior experience but are engaged in vocations far and distant from anything to do with it).

Jim looks at the relevant newspaper quotations and likes the way the numbers coalesce, and makes the trade based upon that comforting sensory impression.  Nancy, in a different state and unbeknownst to Jim, has been pouring over the numbers, calculating, looking at the history of past performances, and creates an algorithm founded upon a calculus of probabilities, and pushes that computer button to deplete one’s bank account based upon mathematical precision that approaches some semblance of certainty, but never quite.  And Deborah, well, she possesses on this day a certain “instinctive” feeling about a particular futures trade, and proceeds entirely upon this emotional response.  Of the three, whom do we consider as validated, worthy of following or respecting of methodologies?

If Deborah were to increase her portfolio by, say, 500%, and Jim merely breaks even but Nancy loses her proverbial shirt, would we dismiss it by thinking, “Ah, just pure luck”?  On the other hand, if Jim were to make a nominal profit, Nancy were to obtain significant returns, and it was Deborah who lost everything, would it change our attitudes and confirm the notion that rationalism prevailed because it is the only valid approach to life’s complexities?

The acceptance of rationalism is inevitable for the rational animal; elevating it to a status where all other approaches are stifled, however, can ignore the spectrum of other dimensions just as valid in human life.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition necessitates preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it may be that “rationality” cautions one to remain in the Federal or Postal job because of job security and financial stability.

But there are other considerations, as well, such as an instinctive will to survive; and when stifling rationalism quiets the voice of health’s call to safety, it may well be time to consider preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

 

Medical Retirement under FERS & CSRS: Childhood wishes

We had them; some of us still remember and harbor them like sacrosanct relics of priceless value; and still others know of them and recollect some general idea long forgotten, once delighted in, but now rotting in the vestiges of abandoned buildings hollow but for the frame that haunts in the midnight moon.

Wishes remain throughout one’s life, whether in the stage of adulthood or old age; but it is the childhood wishes one remembers that reveal the empty soul of what one has become, may still be, but struggles to abandon with a hope for tomorrow.  Some of them may be set aside as silly thoughts of an immature time; others, a revelatory insight into who we were, what made us become what we are today, and a telling hint of our present-day bitterness of embattled constitution.

Perhaps it was a love thwarted; a Dickensian tale of another Scrooge who foolishly wanted to pursue one pathway at the cost of another; or, maybe the childhood wishes were merely promises of correcting the sorrow of yesteryears, where neglectful parents and inattentive love left one yearning to promise corrective action when one became a parent yourself, but somehow such commitments were waylaid by daily life – of money troubles, relationship squabbles and expectation bubbles bursting by fits and starts.

It used to be that, before the age of Facebook and obsessive hounding for revelatory information about past friends and acquaintances, people would try to “better themselves” when they went away in order to come back and “show them” how successful one had become upon the glorious return and reentry at gatherings such as high school and college reunions – much like the Tom Sawyer effect of coming back from the dead – but not anymore, as everyone already knows everything to know about everyone else before such a re-gathering is effectuated.

At some point in one’s life, the comparison between childhood wishes and the reality of a daunting world magnifies the contrast that leads to an inevitable conclusion: the naïve innocence of those former times either worked as a detriment, in which case cynicism prevailed; or, those childhood dreams allowed for an expansive, healthy and positive outlook such that they provided a foundation for growth and potential for happiness.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are struggling with 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 job, perhaps contemplating 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, is the next step beyond for one’s future and security, and thought to be the “end” of something.

The difference between the two approaches may be nominal, or momentous, depending upon how one looks at it.  Is it like the proverbial attitude of the “cup half full” or “half empty”?  Or, is it because childhood wishes were never resolved, and that lonely and unhappy child one remembers never quite grew up, and the debilitating medical conditions now recall the dreams never realized, the hopes barely reached, and the potentiality not quite cultivated to fruition?

Look at it this way: Medical conditions are a part of life and daily struggle; filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits should not be viewed as either the end-all or the be-all, but a necessary next step with a view towards advancing beyond the childhood wishes one still awaits to fulfill.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: Expectations beyond the norm

We begin the nascent origins of remembrances expecting greater things beyond the normal levels of reality; that is what we now define as a “good childhood” as opposed to a lesser, or even an ordinary one to bear and be burdened with.

We are admonished that we can “be anything”; that potentiality and possibility (is there even any conceptual clarity of distinction between the two, anymore, and what of the third in its trifecta – of probability?) are limitless; that, like child prodigies of yore, each of us are “special” (query:  if everyone is special, does the concept itself lose all meaning, as in the philosophical conundrum of nihilism, where if you believe in nothingness, where can there be a “something” to lend it any meaning at all?) and defined by the uniqueness of our own boundaries superimposed by society, artificial constructs and unattainable hopes and dreams.

With that baggage of certainty to failure, we begin to travel life’s inestimable travails and untried valleys of difficult terrain.  Yet, we call that a good childhood.  By contrast, we ascribe bad parenting to the cynic who treads upon the fragile soul of a child:  “Chances are, you’ll never amount to anything”; “You’re never going to be able to do that, so why try?” (said to a 16 year old who has stunted growth trying to dunk a ball); “Don’t waste your time; you don’t have the talent for it, anyway.”  These comprise, constitute and reflect emotional harm and verbal abuse, by the standards of today.

We are never supposed to discourage, but always to encourage; never to allow for the reality of an impervious universe to influence, but rather, to always create a fantasy of potentiality and possibility of hope and perspective of the impossible.  But what of encounters with strangers and angels disguised as visiting anonymity?  Do we say to the child, “You are special; all people are special; as special people all, welcome all”?  No, instead we preface warnings, admonish with goblins and ogres beneath every bed, and scare the hell out of kids – which, by the way, is also considered good parenting.  And thus do we become adults, weighed down by the baggage of heavy biases towards the realities of life.

Most of us realize, at some point, that being “special” merely means that we are ordinary human beings living quite monotonous lives, and that only celebrities, politicians and the once-in-a-lifetime Bob Dylan truly fit into that category of uniqueness.  Happiness is the expectation dashed, evaluated, then accepted; and that it’s all okay.  Then, when a medical condition hits, it makes it all the more so; for, as children, we also expected that our mortality was nothing more than something well into an obscure future, always touching others but never ourselves.

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 position, the reality of our own vulnerabilities and fragile nature begins to set in.  Expectations beyond the norm have to be compromised.  Dreams once hoped for and hopes once dreamed of require some modifications.  But that’s all okay; health is the venue for hope, and without it, there isn’t even a whiff of dreaming for tomorrow’s moment.

Prepare well the Federal Disability Retirement application.  It is okay to be ordinary, and to recognize the fragility of human life and health, for it is the latter that needs to be protected in order to dream of a future where a summer’s day dozing on a picnic blanket will fulfill all expectations beyond the norm.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire