OPM Medical Retirement Laws: Confirmation and Affirmation

The former is both a religious sacrament in Church doctrine, as well as a state of establishing that something is true or correct; the latter, an act or statement of support for that which was previously thought to be so.  Both imply a previous state of foreknowledge, or at least an indication of some prior existence of validity; it merely needed a further stamp of approval or attestation of verification.  And that is how most opinions are sought, aren’t they?  In our own minds, we already know the answer; the search for counsel is not for new revelation, but merely a confirmation of that which we know, and the affirmation of what is needed to be done.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition impacts the capacity and ability of being able to perform the essential elements of one’s positional duties, the recognition for the need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is determined far in advance of any phone call to an attorney for guidance and counsel.

The search for “advice”, as the term is loosely presented, is often to merely confirm that which is already known, and to affirm the process which has already been discovered.  For, the medical condition itself already tells the Federal or Postal employee of the necessity of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, and the agency’s unfriendly and often hostile response has established the harbinger of one’s future.

Like secrets between nations and skeletons in one’s proverbial closet, the preparation, formulation and filing of Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM is somewhat of a formality; it was known already for quite some time, but the Federal and Postal employee just needed to confirm and affirm the inevitability of necessity already revealed, but wanting of declaration.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Law: Loss of Meaning

What it is that motivates a person to achieve greatness; whether the factor of that which does, or purports to be, and to what extent the outward articulation of the elements of a driving force corresponds with the esoterically objective truth underlying the learned and expected statements for public consumption; these, we may never know.

Most of us engage in repetitive monotony of actions; whether by fear of societal retribution, the judgment of peers, a sense of responsibility and obligation; or, perhaps even by sheer ignorance and stupidity, where the instinctive drive is merely based upon the base hunger for accumulation of material objects; as self-reflection is rarely a consideration of serious intent, so the onset of what some deem a mid-life crisis is often nothing more than a pause in unthinking acts of greater thoughtless chasms in void and vacuity.

Medical conditions, and the impact of a debilitating injury or disease, can be the prompting nudge for change and upheaval. Whether because a medical condition forces one to consider a redistribution of life’s priorities, or merely because they interrupt the capacity and ability to continue in an unthinking manner; regardless of the motive, change becomes an inevitable consequence of an unexpected medical condition.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal Worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is an option of limited choice.

For, as the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, so the dependency upon the agency to provide a “reasonable accommodation” is ultimately an act of futility.  “Reasonable accommodation” is merely that which is accorded in order to perform all of the essential elements of the job; it does not do away with any of the elements, and thus is rarely conceivable, and practically impossible to implement.

Federal and Postal workers who are prevented from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, at least have the option of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits. Many in the private sector have no such benefit, and are thus left to disparate means and desperate devices.  Often, the onset of a health condition becomes a crisis of meaning, where the medical condition itself compels the Federal or Postal worker to question the meaning and value of one’s work and accomplishments.  But the loss of meaning need not occur as a necessary or inevitable consequence.

Federal Disability Retirement accords an opportunity of a second bite at the proverbial apple; there is life after Federal Medical Retirement for those who get beyond the long and arduous bureaucratic process, and the meaning of one’s existence need not be the harbinger of fate, but merely a door opened for future endeavors of thoughtful exercises and prioritizing of values.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire