OPM Retirement from Medical Conditions: Proof to Conclusion

It has been pointed out by many philosophers that Socratic Method is not the manner in which most people conduct their lives in arriving at beliefs.

Rather than the traditionally-accepted engagement of searching for evidence and analyzing such evidence, then arriving at a conclusion based upon the strength of that evidence, the very opposite occurs: We first form our own conclusions, then accept any and all evidence which tends to support that belief, simultaneously excluding and ignoring any semblance of evidence which may contradict our firmly-held beliefs.

“Proof to conclusion” is the supposed paradigm; in reality, “conclusion without proof” is the working norm.

And, perhaps, part of the problem as to why we operate in this manner is because we are a nation of lawyers, and why the adversarial system is also “supposed” to operate in a dialectical manner where contending “proofs” are meant to clash and contradict, until the “truth” somehow dominates the adversarial contentiousness and makes its appearance in a persuasive manner; yet, somehow, it doesn’t seem to work in the way it is supposed to.

In reality, what law school teaches is the following:  “Here is the conclusion we want to reach; now, go and find the legal precedents which justify the conclusion which we have already reached.”

For Federal Government employees and U.S. Postal Service workers who are contemplating preparing an effective Federal/Postal Disability Retirement application under FERS, this manner of counter-rational — or, reverse-thinking — can be a detriment in putting together a sufficient Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

On the one hand, “Conclusion-then-proof” is somewhat of a “given”, inasmuch as the “conclusion” has already been reached:  That you have an impeding medical condition requiring the submission of a Federal Disability Retirement application, and the “proof” must thereafter be obtained.  On the other hand, the legal criteria required by Federal Disability Retirement Law looks for the Socratic Method — of providing proof, then allowing the governing body (OPM for Stages 1 & 2; the MSPB for Stage 3 of the Federal Disability Retirement process) to reach its own conclusion.

Thus, both the “traditional” method (otherwise known as the Socratic Method) as well as the counter-normative method are involved.

In either case, it is important to have the guidance of a Federal Disability Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, where both the Socratic Method and the Counter-Normative Method can be employed, where — in the end — the “proof to conclusion” can stand a chance to get an approval for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.

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: Whac-A-Mole

Life itself is like that, and perhaps that is why we enjoy the quick resolution — of problems arising, and the ability to attend to each eruption with a quick “whack!”  Or, perhaps the attractiveness is ensconced in our fantasies and wishes: That we wish life was merely a matter of moles appearing and that each problem can be resolved with a quick hit on the head.

Quick reactions are required for playing the game well; those who hesitate fail at it — but that is the receptive popularity of the game itself; that no one actually “loses”, but merely reveals a contrast as against someone who may be quicker than you are.

In real life, however, only half of the game represents reality — the half where problems erupt suddenly, out of nowhere, unexpectedly, and which cannot be predicted as to which direction it may come, how it may appear, what the problem is, when it will arise, etc.  The other half of the game — of whacking the “problem” (i.e., the mole) and having it disappear quickly — fails to represent adequately the reality of life.

Life is a set of problems to resolve; each problem, however, is rarely one by which a quick resolution can be attained.  That is also true of the Federal Disability Retirement process — yes, the end result (obtaining an approval of a Federal Disability Retirement claim through OPM) may resolve the issue of one’s employment, but the process itself is a long bureaucratic morass which presents multiple problems throughout.

Contact an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and let the attorney deal with each mole with a legal “whack” which is effective and applicable.

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.

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Segment of Accomplishment

Each of us are allotted a specified time within which to make our fortune, map out our notoriety, earn and gain the respect of our community, and then — recede into the footnotes of history, if even an honorable mention is deservedly given as a coronation of our accomplishments.  The segment of accomplishment is our slice of life; it is the time given in order to make a difference, to “live to the fullest”, to put our stamp upon history; or to remain in the shadows of anonymity.

During the course of that segment of accomplishment, we are often beset with questions that make us pause: Is there meaning in this universe?  Is there a transcendent purpose that guides?  Is our segment of accomplishment of any relevance?  What if we fail at our allotted segment?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who become impacted by a medical condition that prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the questions surrounding one’s segment of accomplishment becomes poignantly posed: Is this the end of my particular segment, and what is there beyond?

Consult with a Federal Disability Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement law, and begin to consider filing for an effective Federal Disability Retirement application so that the segment of accomplishment for this particular slice can be completed, and a view towards the future — and another segment of accomplishment — may bring about the next stage of fulfillment.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
OPM Disability Attorney

 

OPM Medical Retirement Benefits: Confused confusion

Why confuse the confused?  Why confuse further the confusion that already confused even the least of the confused?  Why add to the confusion when the confused are confused enough as it is, and when confusion should be relieved by less confusion instead of confusing everyone further by adding to the confusion?

Life is confusing enough, and it is amidst the confusion of life’s state of perennial confusion that we seek relief from the confusing state of affairs, but which often leads to further confusion because we ourselves are confused.

It all began in childhood when first we entered the ice cream shop and had to choose between vanilla, chocolate and strawberry flavors — and we turned to our parents wanting all three, or one of them, or perhaps two out of three, and we admitted mournfully, “Mom, I’m confused.”  Then, the next summer, we stepped in line and looked up at the offerings, and there were 3 more flavors added — of caramel-something-or-another, chocolate mint and peach; and from thence forward, choices for unlimited quantities of alternatives offered bombarded our sensibilities and overloaded the limited circuitry of life’s options.

Then, of course, there was the “fax machine” that began it all — not having to have to wait for the snail mail to carry back and forth the correspondence that was being typed first on a manual typewriter, then an electric one, then a “word processor”, then a tabletop computer, then a laptop, and then the smartphone and beyond — where every written piece of memorialization could be instantly received, to be further replaced by emails, attachments to emails, shared documents and instantaneous transmissions through the netherworld of constant connectivity; and we wonder, are we any clearer within our lives than before the confused confusion we experience today?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who believe that the Federal Disability Retirement process is a rather confusing administrative morass, such a belief would not be unfounded.

The complexity of the process — of what meets and constitutes the “preponderance of the evidence” test; of the multiple and various case-law precedents that determine and define the eligibility criteria for a successful Federal Disability Retirement application; to the confusing language contained in SF 3112C that will supposedly “guide” the treating doctors into providing the necessary medical information in order to successfully meet the eligibility criteria — all of it is inherently and purposefully complex and confusing.  How does one cut through the thickets of confusion?

To begin with, confusion is sometimes confused with complexity; and though they share some characteristics, the difference between the two is that while one possesses inherent elements which may lead to confusion, the other (confusion) is not necessarily defined by them.

Federal Disability Retirement is a complex administrative process, and the confusing elements within the process can lead to later complications unless clarified at the early stages.  To do so — i.e., to clarify the confusions and simplify the complexities — the Federal or Postal employee may want to consult with an experienced attorney who specializes in that complex and confusing area of law identified as “Federal Disability Retirement Law”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Government Employment: The Mercenary

Why is it that money taints with toxicity of motive?  If a person does something with no compensatory demand, does that fact alone make it less suspect?  Does the professional soldier who gets paid by one’s own country show a level of patriotism unblemished, but the one who hires out for monetary rewards by another, belie a code of honor?  What gives the scent of blemish, the hint of a soul’s impoverishment, and the sullied character of an inner decay?

Are we merely taught to remain in silent awe at the poor woman in the story of the miserly penny, and frown if a child begins laughing and saying, “What a fool to give up the last penny!”  Are saints born, or are they taught and disciplined, when the innate signs of cynicism may yet win out over the empathy of a fool’s errand?  What good is “goodness” in an evil world?  Do we remember Bonhoeffer, or was his courage forgotten amidst the thousands of graves both marked and without remembrance, in a world where community no longer exists and friends are counted by Facebook likes and never by the warmth of human comity?

Somehow, money taints, and the toxicity of the transfer sticks like mud to the boots of a killer, leaving tracks and traces in the bogs of lives tarnished.  Yet, it is the exchange by which dreams are made, the goal for which daily toil is endured, and the chances taken in bribes received in order to attain a measure of financial security and the declarative success of an age where hypocrisy dares to utter its laughable voice of despair.

Is it because we believe that mercenaries fail to believe in that which is being fought for, and instead confuse the means for an end we misguidedly believe should be the end in and of itself?  Does engaging an individual for purposes of honor, country, faith and other tropes of a nation’s visage of vacuous promises make it any more substantive if the abandonment of a country of its own vital principles reaches a point where such terms no longer apply?

There are those who romanticize the independence of the mercenary, despite the Geneva Convention restrictions which grant lesser protections in the event of capture; and, yet, history is replete with their use and presence, from Ancient Egypt during the rein of Pharaoh Ramesses II  to the French Foreign Legion and the British Gurkha regiments, and beyond to modern warfare.  But romanticization and reality often conflict and collide, and the remaining entrails of toxicity remain with the scent of avoidance.

In more quiet arenas of modern life, the term itself is often applicable not to fields of the battleground, but to individuals who “go after” others for rewards and reasons of similar taint and toxicity.  In the employment arena, there are mercenaries aplenty, and they are predators that devour with equal ferocity.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset who suffers 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, and therefore must prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the duality of dangers must be faced.

First, the allegation that the Federal or Postal employee is merely being a “mercenary” by “taking advantage” of a generous system of medical retirements, and Second, to beware of the mercenaries of the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service who aggressively go after the Federal or Postal employee weakened and unable to defend him or herself during the process of preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, precisely because of the medical condition itself.

In both instances, it is the mercenary instinct itself which dominates, and no amount of honor or faith in country can withstand the onslaught of the vicious outliers of such gossiping geese.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Medical Retirement: Of the worthwhile life

What determines value?  More importantly, who judges worth?  Is productivity the paradigmatic construct of comparative analysis?  For, in order to assess the greater advantage of X over Y, some methodology of an objective basis should be applied in devaluing one as opposed to appointing the other as the beneficial contestant of an evaluative conclusion; or can we just arbitrarily gauge one over the other based upon personal preferences?

Rawls has variously pointed out that we can be just as “reasoned” in our conclusions by applying a consistent model of application in the social justice arena — for example, we may decide to execute all people discovered on the East end of town who are left-handed with brown-eyes on every third Sunday of odd-numbered months, and exonerate those in the same part of town who are right-handed on every fifth Tuesday of every other year.  That is an arbitrary absurdity, one might declare, and one which fails to abide by the “rules of justice” as we know them.

Further, to diminish the value of one group based upon superficial concerns, while granting clemency to another based upon an equally unaccounted for basis, is to defy an objective application of fairness.  But if such rules are implemented by an authoritarian figure who possesses confidential information that an underworld bevy of dangerous criminals gather to conspire at the East end of town every third Sunday of odd-numbered months, and that all of the leaders of the group happen to be left-handed; and, further, that loyal patriots who are often mistaken for those same criminals likewise meet to fight against the known dangerous elements on every fifth Tuesday of alternate years, and who happen to be right-handed, would one’s judgment be different with this new information?

Certainly, the application of justice would be consistent, and there is a rationality of purpose behind it, now.  What changed the judgment of value?  Or, have we now altered the definition of the concept, like a metamorphosis of the linguistic caterpillar that, overnight, became a beautiful butterfly fluttering against the winds of historical change?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering 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 concept of a worthwhile life often attaches itself to the level of productivity one believes one is capable of, and the capacity for which diminishment reflected in a self-image of mistaken belief is that by which it is justified.

Be wary of making decisions based upon what others have deemed to be as the paradigmatic definition of the worthwhile life; it may be that one’s own judgment is as arbitrary and devoid of substantive content as the misbelief that most of us have of the pasture being greener in the neighbor’s yard.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The numerical veil

Statistical constructs indicate group shifts and movements; numbers, based upon controlled samplings, provide the substantive fodder for analysis of trends and patterns of population deviancies.  There is, however, the question of the incommensurate nature between mathematical paradigms and linguistic application; stated more simply, Do numbers hide more than reveal, and can anything be extrapolated from them and interpreted in terms we can understand and comprehend?

To a winner of the lottery, the numerical phantasm “one in a billion” remains meaningless; and to the dismissive statistical irrelevancy stated in language more readily comprehended, that there is a greater chance of dying in an automobile accident than from a shark attack, becomes inconsequential and of little comfort if you are laying in a hospital bed with a good part of your flesh missing from such a traumatic event.  That’s the problem with numbers, of course, and the use, misuse and abuse of statistical analysis; in the end, it depends upon how it is used, the methodology of discourse, and the manner of application.

To be hit by lightening may well be more uncommon than death by drowning, but if your job is to be a caddy for an eccentric billionaire who enjoys golfing on days of severe weather patterns, the generalizations ascribed by comparative mathematical analysis may be somewhat skewed.  And, of course, for romance of young couples who scoff at divorce rates and patterns affirmed by celebrity lives and the cultural meltdown pervasive throughout, the lack of life experiences, the want of provocation through trials and turmoils yet to be encountered and not yet encumbering, allows for hope, charity and a sense of optimism despite the universe which surrounds of cynical diatribes.

We take comfort in the veil of numbers, precisely because we can manipulate them in the ways we want.  Facing a bleak outlook, we can justify resistance with a dismissive wave of the hand (or that invisible wand of magic and sorcery) and declare, “Well, the chances are…”  Numbers never tell of the human emotions and toil of reality; they remain as cold mathematical calculations, jiggered and manipulated by the picture of emotionless bureaucrats who wear spectacles to magnify the inconsequential harm imparted upon the lives left behind.

And for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management?  Such individuals, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, become part and parcel of the statistical conundrum who once had names, faces and identities, but somehow became relegated into the numerical aggregate of “those” people who departed by filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through OPM, all because they could no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of the positional duties assigned.

Does such fear of becoming a mere irrelevancy of statistical obscurity make the Federal or Postal employee pause, despite the chronic pain or the psychiatric despondency which tells of the urgency to file for the benefit?  Probably.  Yet, beyond the numerical veil which hides, each Federal or Postal employee who departed and left behind such a statistical imprint, go on to live productive lives thereafter, with ongoing emotional ups and downs, as real people, living authentic lives untold by the hidden abyss echoing from the chambers of silent digits.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: The repairs we need to get to

It may well be a distinction with only a slight difference, as most such conceptual bifurcations tend to be.  In this day and age, we tend to just gloss over the minutiae which used to delight curious minds and pave the pathway for tenured professorships by way of publishing in esoteric journals of the Gestalt conclusions derived in academia — those slight nuances heretofore unnoticed which are suddenly and miraculously discovered by the keen insights of an eccentric perspective.

Thus, in life do we leave many things behind and set aside, for repairs to be attended to at a later time; and like a trail of dust reflected well by Pig-pen in Peanuts, the junk scattered tells of the character of the person, the inner essence of the personality, and the core of a human being’s wants, desires and tendencies of action or inaction.  At the end of one’s life, what does the junkyard of humanity reflect and represent?

We, each of us, create them; of vast reservoirs of rusting appliances, and often unrepairable masses of collected antiquities, where components for any semblance of working order have become obsolete or otherwise unavailable.  Some of those items scattered behind or left asunder, are the “emotional” ones; others, of family ties broken or damaged so severely as to belie any chance of regeneration, where reincarnation in the next phase of life must muse to consider reinvigoration of animation, whence the lifeless form once showed a promise of a future still bright.

We cannot go back and repair everything we have left aside or behind; there simply is not enough time in life in order to do that.  That’s why we left things undone in the first place; time requires prioritization — otherwise, in attempting to do everything, we end up doing nothing.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have, in the last few years, felt the progressive decline of health and the consequences of being unable to attend to the most important of issues facing anyone and everyone — one’s own health — the time to prepare and formulate an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed through one’s own agency (if not yet separated from Federal Service, or otherwise separated for 31 days or more, but not 1 year hence from the date of Federal Separation) and then to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is likely upon and passed beyond the time of prudence.

Junkyards are common sights; some are openly displayed, while others are hidden behind walls and fences; but it is the scattered debris of things unseen, the physical pain and the emotional scars ignored, which need the greatest of care, attention and repair; and for the Federal or Postal employee — whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, who suffers from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing all of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job — it is well beyond the time to prioritize the central themes of life and living, and get those repairs done which we need to get to, and forget about the peripheral concerns which should have been left behind long ago.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire