FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Leaving things to pure chance

We rarely do that.  Yes, we sometimes allow for a partiality of such circumstances to remain, knowing that it may or may not happen; but the conceptual distinction between “pure” and left otherwise is a gap likened between omniscience and imperfect knowledge, or the ability to observe brilliance in action while the rest of us scrounge about for some semblance of competence.

Then, of course, there is a wide chasm in the spectrum of what it means to leave things to chance, in contradistinction to “pure” chance.  The difference is often seen as tantamount to the extreme arbitrariness of lack of human involvement – where, somehow and miraculously, engagement by a person necessarily results in an enhancement of success – or none at all.  Yet, the concept of “chance” itself can involve some restrictive involvement of a person, but nevertheless still have the consequence of purity of arbitrariness.

Whether it is the natural arrogance of human beings that cannot abide by a comprehension of the universe that human activity may not necessarily enhance any greater level of perfected creativity, or the unfounded assumption that nature – left to its own devices – constitutes a haphazard abyss of chaotic malfunctioning that can only be “corrected” by the consciousness of human activity (which further presumes an equivalence of man as the Deus ex machina, a role reversal of utter egocentrism as to betray any semblance of self-knowledge) – perhaps we shall never understand.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers contemplating preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS, CSRS of CSRS Offset, the important thing to remember is that each Federal or Postal employee must make a reasoned decision in placing one’s self on the spectrum of leaving things to pure chance, or chance, or enhanced human activity that results in something less than the consequences of a Deus ex machina, but somewhat more than the chaotic arbitrariness of Nature’s folly (isn’t that essentially the theological argument of intelligent design, or at least a teleological perspective of purpose and meaning?).

Preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application requires a methodological understanding extrapolated from the madness of bureaucracy that requires certain elements be proven beyond a preponderance of the evidence, and clearly, some understanding of the applicable laws governing Federal Disability Retirement Law will help to enhance the chances of success.

In the end, consulting with an attorney who specializes in preparing Federal Disability Retirement applications is arguably the best approach in not leaving things to pure chance – although, even an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law should not be looked upon as that Deus ex machina that saves the day on an otherwise chaotic stage of human folly.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Sparing the Legal Argument

In preparing, formulating, and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, there are multiple discretionary decisions to make.  By “discretionary decision“, is meant that there may be differing priorities of values which must be placed in the very process of deciding whether or not to include or exclude a medical document, legal argument, etc., and the prioritizing of the value placed upon such evidence is what will determine the decision itself.  There may ultimately be no “correct” decision on the matter, as opposed to an incorrect one.

Further, one may never know (or care, once an approval of a Federal Disability Retirement application is received) whether or not the Office of Personnel Management made a positive or adverse decision on the Federal Disability Retirement application (whichever the case may be at any given stage of the administrative process) based upon the same priority of values assessed upon the decision itself.

For example, sometimes the evidence itself — whether medical or non-medical documentary evidence — may be compelling enough in and of itself, that making a long and tedious legal argument may in fact detract from the prima facie strength of the evidence itself.  Or, it may be that a short sentence or annotation in a medical document may be so significant that a particular legal argument, however long and involved that may be, should be stated, and stated at length, and argued boldly.

Discretion dictates a restraining of a reactionary response; sometimes, the shorter the statement, the more effective is the presentation.  Length and verbosity alone do not constitute effectiveness in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Responding to the Template Approach

While the Office of Personnel Management issues template approvals and denials, what must the individual applicant who receives such a template denial, do?  Obviously, it cannot be a “template” response, because any response by an individual applicant is going to be an individualized response.  Often, however, OPM’s response takes a shot-gun approach in denying a Federal Disability Retirement application — it uses every device in its template, touching upon every issue and sub-issue, without any apparent (or obvious) rhyme or reason.  Whether purposeful or not, the extent and quantity of reasons for denial become almost insurmountable, and unable to “sort out”. 

One thing that a Federal Disability Retirement applicant should not do, is to take the denial letter to his or her doctor to respond to.  It will only confuse the doctor.  Instead, the denial letter must be reduced to a comprehensible set of criteria which can be answered.  Sub-sets of issues need to be identified and consolidated; the minor (but often irritating) references to peripheral issues, often touched upon but of no real consequence, must be ignored; and the focus must be placed upon the central 2 or 3 issues which seem to be the overriding concerns in the denial letter.  In other words, the denial letter must be deciphered and extracted to be “made sense of”.  Only then can OPM’s template denial letter be answered — with reason, aggressive attack, and a rational grounding in the law.  In other words, irrationality must be met with clarity of mind.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire