FERS Medical Retirement: The Dissolution of the Monasteries

One is puzzled as to why it is being read, why it continues to fascinate; and why continue to plod through a work comprised of 500+ pages with hundreds of footnotes and meticulously annotated and “sourced” — of life in 16th Century England as the religious monasteries will be dissolved under the mandate of King Henry VIII.  Perhaps it is because, in reading all of the minutiae of life in the 1500s, one realizes that it was a different world, no less alien than a spaceship from Mars or from some other solar system.

We live in a world which is the culmination of absurdity — of school shootings being an accepted part of our psyche; of an ever-growing explosion of teen depression, anxiety and other psychiatric disorders where psychotropic medication regimens have become the norm; and where all of the traditional institutions we once trusted and depended upon have failed us: The schools; the churches; the government; the local community.

Other worlds, other times; reading about an era centuries ago reminds us that change is inevitable; that history is never static; that there are trade-offs in every dimension of life.  One is struck by the limitations imposed upon a person’s life — where options in making a living were essentially predetermined, both by station and status upon birth, or by the restrictions of one’s abilities; that religious orders offered a vibrant accommodation for intellectual engagement and a steady, if somewhat limited, standard of living.

But times were changing; the monastic dissolution was just around the corner; and as this stupendous work annotates well, nothing is ever static.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are facing the dissolution of a career with the Federal Government or the U.S. Postal Service as a result of a chronic medical condition, consider the option of an OPM Medical Retirement.

For, like the dissolution of the Monasteries in 1540, when there was no other option but to accept the change, the Federal or Postal worker who must face the prospect of change because of a medical condition which is no less restrictive, at least an OPM Medical Retirement is an available option of last resort, when you are no longer able to perform one or more of the essential functions of your job.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of bypassing the potential dissolution of you job by preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under the FERS system.

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 Employee and Postal Worker Medical Disability Pension: Perspective

We all have one.  When we fail to recognize that others, also, have one — and one which is different from ours — that is when we get into arguments, disputes, irreconcilable differences, etc.

The complex Kantian position of ordering the universe through a structural imposition of an otherwise chaotic reality gets filtered down to the ordinary person’s understanding that, yes, we come from different places, distinctive upbringings and alien cultures.

It makes a difference upon how we view the world.  Some are eternal optimists; others, bedtime pessimists.  Some view others skeptically; others, with open arms and “you’re my best buddy” upon a first encounter.

Conformity by society quashes the unique soul, and so we come to expect everyone else to have a similar, restrictive perspective.  When others step outside of the demarcation of acceptable perspective, we often find it threatening.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows for the Federal or Postal worker to perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position, a necessary change of perspective often occurs.

No longer is the Federal Agency the friendly place of reserve; no longer is the Federal Agency looking out for your best interests; and no longer is your Human Resources Office of the Federal Agency the “helpful” department.

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin to conform to a world comprised of an adversarial perspective.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Attorney

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Weak Links

Perhaps we refer to it when using a chain to tow another vehicle, or to pull something or someone up from a deep ravine; and it is always the weak link that leads to the sudden collapse and failure.

We can apply the term in a metaphorical sense for other contexts, as well.  In a movie or play, there are “weak links” — of supportive roles, or perhaps even in referring to the main actor, that fails to deliver the expected performance necessary to brings about a box-office hit; or of a technologically-based company that provides a specific product, but somewhere down the line of the assembly or production process, a “weak link” is discovered which results in the failure of the product.

Air bags that fail to deploy properly; a member of a platoon who doesn’t “carry his weight”; a memory chip that erases critical information — all “weak links” within an aggregation of human activity.

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, there can be many “weak links”.  Perhaps your Federal Agency or Postal facility looks upon you as the “weak link” and thus proceeds to engage in a campaign of harassment and initiation of adverse actions to get rid of you.

You may need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  And when you do, you yourself must make sure that there are no “weak links” in the preparation and submission of your OPM Disability Retirement application.

Consult with an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and limit the number of “weak links” in order to give yourself the best chance possible. For, in the end, it is always the “weak links” that come back to haunt.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Benefits: False Coinage

Technically, it is the private minting of a transactional currency by which goods are bought and sold or, to put it bluntly, counterfeit money.

The term, however, can be used in other contexts implying falsity of belief or fraudulence of engagements.  Examples: She believed in the false coinage that tomorrow would be a better day just by sheer force of will; he accepted the false coinage of her handshake while knowing that behind his back, she would laugh and make fun of him.  Or: The false coinage of history’s lesson is that human beings learn from their mistakes, when in fact repetition of such folly reveals the very opposite.

We all accept such false coinage, although we like to think that we are smarter than that.

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 job, the false coinage often involves the belief that the medical condition will simply get better over time, and that the Federal agency or the Postal service will be patient enough to wait for your eventual recovery.

Consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, lest the false coinage accepted results in an untimely termination from your Federal or Postal job.  Consult with an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.  It may prevent the future transaction of accepting such false coinage.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Retirement for Mental or Physical Incapacity: Of persuasive effect

What does it mean to possess “of persuasive effect”?  If a person argues in a debate for endless hours, and at the end of it all, various people from the watchful audience turn aside to one another and declare, “Well, he sure was persuasive, but I’m still going to vote for the other guy” — what can such a statement mean?  If an acknowledgment of persuasion nevertheless results in an opposite conclusion, can one still maintain that there existed any degree of the very element which was supposed to modulate otherwise?

And legal precedents which must be applied — say, in a Federal Disability Retirement case, where the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is “required by law” to consider certain elements, such as under the Bruner case or the Simpkins case and subsequent case-law holdings which “mandate” that OPM consider the proffered evidence as cited by a Legal Memorandum — do they necessitate a certain outcome, or is it merely “persuasive but not determinative”, and what does that mean?  Is it that the level of persuasion was just “not enough”, and while it might have come somewhat close, it just didn’t have that final “clincher” to put it over the goal line?

And if we know beforehand that “persuasive effect” won’t necessarily result in a “determinative impact”, do we just not try at all, or is the mere possibility of “tipping the balance in one’s favor” enough to try and attempt to persuade?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, and where preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application becomes necessary, the impact of a Legal Memorandum — prepared and submitted along with the Federal Disability Retirement “packet” — is like traveling with Google Maps guiding one into unfamiliar territory.  Without it, the reviewing “specialist” at OPM will simply be presented with a stack of information with no indexing or cover sheet.

With it, the importance of persuasive effect is there to guide the OPM reviewer into seeing what is relevant and what is not; of the legal cases that are impactful and persuasive; and of the mandated requirements in applying the proper legal criteria, and not merely of empty arguments that seemingly possess of persuasive effect, but lead to conclusions otherwise left without direction.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Benefits: The person I once knew

We all carry about that image of who we once were; or, perhaps of many of the person we once knew.  Which memory-bank do we wash upon, once the shores of present images dissipate and the lapping waves of bygone days have begun to fade, like the vestiges of old photographs submitting to time’s ravages in the decay of life’s cycles of natural degradation?

The person I once knew — was it of the boy who sat upon a beach and giggled as the foam of gentle waves sang upon the tickling bare feet?  Or the teenager who had acted like a fool and allowed for regrets to shadow one’s conscience for having been unkind to the unpopular girl who later turned into the beautiful swan and sang the merriment of forlorn days away?  Or of the young man or woman who had hopes and unlimited dreams that somehow were closeted for a future time, never to be reopened to dust them off when the opportunities had come and gone?

The person I once knew was the one who defied danger and laughed in the face of a greasy cheeseburger, but now is fearful of the next health crisis and the pain that wrings the neck of a squawking chicken.

For the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from a medical condition where the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal worker’s ability and capacity to continue to perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it is no longer important to consider the person whom once I knew, but rather, the person who will move forward into the future.

Preparing, formulating and filing 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, is an indication that the greater importance of one’s future self is being recognized as opposed to the person I once knew, thus allowing for the past to be buried in favor of a future still bright with tomorrow’s promises.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Early Retirement for Disabled Federal Workers: Playing with words

What does it mean when a person alleges that you are “just playing with words”?  It is like the non-lawyer public who charges that a certain criminal “was gotten off on a technicality”, whereas the universe of lawyers sees that as a tautology:  Of course the person was found innocent based upon a “technicality” — for, isn’t all of law just that: a technicality?

There is, of course, some kind of implication that seeps beneath the surface of such a charge — that there is an inherent dishonesty in the manner of speaking certain words; that there is an “intended” or primary meaning of the usage of certain words, phrases or concepts, and that when they are taken out of context, seemingly used for a different, perhaps nefarious or self-interested purpose, then one is “playing with words” because dishonesty must by consensus be the condemnation of words used as toys in the hands of a thief.

What would the negation of the allegation be: of a person who declares suddenly, “You are not playing with words”?  Is that the appropriate charge when a person is blunt — like the current political arena of this new breed who says outright that which others merely reserve thoughts for in the privacy of insular lives?

Is that what diplomacy is substantively about — of “playing with words” so that double and triple meanings can be conveyed, leaving everyone paralyzed and motionless because no one knows what everyone else is thinking — at least, not in any precise manner?

Or, perhaps there is a different sense, as in: Words once upon a time held a sacred status and when we demean, abuse or misuse words in a certain way, then we can be charged with “playing with words”.

Sometimes, there are instances in which meanings are “stretched”, or when conclusions that are declared in an unequivocal manner do not coincide with the findings made or the evaluative analysis conducted, and so there is a “disconnect” between fact-finding and conclusion where a person declares unequivocally:  They are just playing with words.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition where 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, preparing, formulating and filing 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, may become a necessity.

In that event, recognize that the entire endeavor is a complex administrative and bureaucratic action that must engage the arena of “words” — and some of it may involve the “playing of words” in the sense that you may have to tinker with different sets of words where comfort and becoming comfortable with unfamiliar concepts and phraseology “come into play”.

When an individual — you — who suffers from a medical condition which you must then step “outside of yourself” in order to describe yourself in “objective” terms, then it can become an oddity which may seem like you are “playing of words”.  In such an event, it is often of great benefit to consult with an attorney so that the very person utilizing the vehicle of words in describing one’s self is not the same person “playing with words” as the very person who suffers from the descriptive words being played with.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Attorney for Federal Disability Retirement Claims: Next Steps

It is the previous step that determines the following one, and the one before that which closes the alternatives for multiple other pathways; in the end, sequence matters, protocol can make a difference, and how one takes the steps, in what direction, by what methodology — these are all important considerations to contemplate.  What the endeavor is; by what means one is attempting to achieve the end-result; and the manner in which the goal is reached; the attempt the take a short-cut will often result in only a short-lived gain, but often with long-term consequences that, upon reflection, made the short-cut pay a price greater than the worth of the gain.

Next steps are important; each step, whether previously taken or subsequently considered, are also obviously of significance, but one could argue that those already taken cannot be reversed or, if reversed or retraced, may complicate matters more, whereas the “next step” yet to be taken may impact all previous ones already established and thus must be considered in light of the consequences likely to ensue.

Whatever has already occurred in the past cannot be undone or, if it can, must be retracted with care such that any retrospective refashioning of previous actions taken will do no greater harm than that which has already been consummated.  It is always the “next steps” that are the crucial ones, for they will determine not only the efficacy of all previous ones, but further, will either validate or undermine all previous ones heretofore taken.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering preparing, formulating and 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, the next steps you take may be the critical ones that determine the success or failure of the entire complex, administrative and bureaucratic process you are attempting to undertake.

What statements are made as reflected on SF 3112A, the Applicant’s Statement of Disability; the sufficiency of the medical reports and records gathered, to be submitted as Attachments to your Federal Disability Retirement application; whether you answer and address the issues concerning accommodations in the workplace sufficiently or in what manner; whether you have an adequate understanding and comprehension of your rights with regard to Federal Disability Retirement Law; these and many other “next steps” may well determine the future course of actions previously taken, ignored or otherwise not initiated.

Perhaps the “next step” should be to consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable about Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest the “next step” be the one that leads to an unforeseen stumble, where that next step leads to a misstep or the following next step after that cannot occur.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The spam of life

Have you ever been amazed by how much “spam” there is?  Consider how many individuals, organizations, groups of individuals, people sitting in their bedrooms with a laptop, etc., trying to scam and spam, for whatever nefarious reasons hidden; it is as if the whole world has gone mad.

Is it true that the great majority of such leftovers often filtered by computer software dependent upon the dubious intent of those who would infect and harm, is produced for the most part by a single individual, group or entity, and the rest and residue by the remainder and leftovers less calculating and invidious?

How is it that we have accepted such human detritus as a normal component within our daily lives, such that we even have a special “folder” that is designated for “spam”, where the software mechanism kindly identifies and re-routes such unwanted crumbs into that neatly identified space, so that in the morning we can just click upon the icon next to it that deletes it into a “garbage” can.

In “real life”, is there such neatness?

But that there would be a software mechanism that rerouted all of the annoyances and irrelevancies in life itself, like the spam that is cordoned off, isolated and singularly quarantined so that we never have to actually deal with it.  Wouldn’t that be nice?  A person who you do not want to speak with begins to approach you.  Bam!  He is immediately carted away and placed into an isolation cell.  A problem within the family arises that is distasteful and irritating.  Slam!  It is summarily solved by swiftly being designated as a spam of life.

Symptoms of a medical condition begin to impact your health.  Pause.  Somehow, you cannot always equate the spam of the computer world with the spam of life; not everything can be simply rerouted and discarded, forgotten forever.  It would be nice if such were the ingredients of life, like that in the world of computers; unfortunately, some things have to be dealt with in a different manner, by a differing approach.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers needing to 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 spam of life is the medical condition itself, and despite our desire to have a computer software somehow make it go away like computer spams that try and infect the technological creations of modernity, there is no special manner in which it can neatly be tucked away into a separate folder.

Instead, the spam of life must be dealt with as with all other similar problems in life’s complexities – by careful preparation, fastidious formulation and timely filing of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, so that other computer spams and unwanted spams of life can be more easily dealt with for a better tomorrow free from the junk mail of a future yet unknown.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Legal Representation: Paradoxes

Quine, probably the greatest logician since Bertrand Russell, notes that paradoxes often occur as a result of presumed beliefs otherwise left unstated, and once they are “fleshed out” through query and made explicit via closer scrutiny and analysis, the portion which befuddles often disappears.  Confusion within a language game, of course, is often a large part of it, and certain unstated preconditions and assumed facts otherwise implicit and hidden will leave the stated portion incomplete such that others must come along and unravel the mystery.

In a similar vein, statements made as “necessarily” so also retain unstated presumptions.  Thus, if we claim that “the sun will rise tomorrow”, we are asserting that it is “necessarily so”.  If a child asks, “Why is that so”, we will often revert to nothing more than Hume’s response that because it has always risen in the past, and the revolution of planets and rotation of the earth around the sun has been a reliable compass upon which we can depend, it is the regularity of events in the past that determine the necessary expectation of repetition for the future.

It is, then, those unstated or “hidden” presumptions that made certain statements and claims unclear, and the job of an attorney is to clarify that which is left in a muddle.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where it becomes necessary to file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the questions surrounding paradoxes and necessity can be important.

Medical conditions can certainly be paradoxes.  Without explanation, they can debilitate, progressively deteriorate and impact a person’s ability and capacity to continue on as before.  Even with a medical diagnosis, prescribed course of treatment and sometimes surgical intervention, they may remain a befuddlement because of a lack of knowledge or explanation.

Having such a medical condition may nevertheless require that the Federal or Postal employee file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits because the Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job.  The filing itself becomes a “necessity”.

The gap between the paradox of the medical condition and the necessity of filing a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management becomes quite clear: Necessity does not equal entitlement, and the paradox must be proven.  In doing so, implicit facts must be explained and explicated, and more than an argument of “because it has always been so” will have to be put forward to persuade OPM of the viability of one’s case.

To that extent, do not allow for concealed and presumed “facts” to defeat your Federal Disability Retirement application, and never allow your statement of facts to remain a paradox, lest it become “necessary” to engage further steps of appealing the Federal Disability Retirement process in pursuance of an approval from OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire