FERS Disability Retirement: Voglio vivere una favola

“I want to live a fable” — A quote at the front of Annie Ernaux’s novel, “Getting Lost”, apparently from an anonymous inscription on the steps of the Basilica of Santa Croce, Florence.  Ernaux was just awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature this year — 2022.  No doubt Bibliophiles around the world have focused their attention upon this little-know French author; but that she would choose such an inscription to begin her novel, says much.  For — do we not, all?  Do we not all want to live a fable?

The fox and the grapes — the fable which is the origin of the phrase “sour grapes.”  A fox spies a bunch of grapes high up on a branch and wants them badly.  The lion and the mouse — A lion catches a mouse, who begs to be let go.  The tortoise and the hare — who wins, in the end, and what does it teach us?  And many others — of fables we learned as children, and the one’s we have learned from the lesson of hard knocks.

If not a fable, then at least a fairytale.  We read fables and fairytales, and expect that life must — or should — reflect the life we are about to lead.  How about — the fable about the ants and the grasshopper?  The former, busy about getting ready for the winter; the latter, playing the violin and living a riotous life; and in the end, what is the lesson?

For Federal Government employees and U.S. Postal Service workers who suffer from a medical condition and need to file for OPM Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, you have no doubt been like those busy ants, and that is why your health has deteriorated.  Contact a FERS Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and make sure that the fable you want to live is the one with the ending you desire.

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 under FERS: When Fluff Rules

When fluff rules, one wonders at the credibility of the entire endeavor.  When fluff rules, it is the lack which becomes magnified and poignant.  When fluff rules, suspicions abound.

One wonders whether present-day applications of therapy and psychoanalysis have become dominated by those who simply could not comprehend the rigors of Jung or Freud, and that the tertiary influences of second-rate thinkers are what is currently guiding the incompetencies masked as expertise and profundity.  But fluff can only survive for too long before it is revealed as lacking in substance.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from medical conditions such that the medical conditions prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS must include a substantive legal argument which lays out the meat of the matter.

Fluff will not work; fluff will not rule.  Law is a serious business, and the argumentation of “the law” must be what rules in order to meet the criteria in a Federal Disability Retirement case.

Contact a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective and substantive Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, where fluff rarely passes by and where the hard legal facts of the case must be king.

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 for Federal Employees: Future Planning

It is perhaps a redundancy to put the two concepts together; for, “planning” is almost always about the future (can one plan for the past?  Or, even for the present — as every moment of the present must by conceptual imposition tick the time for a future event), and thus the inclusion of the concept, “future” becomes an irrelevancy and an unnecessary conceptual appendage.

One can, of course, confuse some concepts — as in, for example, planning for one’s future funeral, or writing one’s obituary (which is essentially future planning but incorporating past events); or of writing a story about something which occurred in the past (as opposed to a science fiction story, which by definition would involve some future event).  So, one might simply entitle an essay, “Future” — but would that necessarily encapsulate “planning”?

On the other hand, to simply say, “Planning” would, by conceptual inference, necessarily involve the future, merely because we all presume that any “planning” would incorporate the future because of the absurdity of thinking that we could plan for what has already passed.

That being said, future planning is always a problem because of the very fact that it must involve “unknowns”, as every future cannot be completely and entirely predictable.  The future, by definition, is an unknown and unknowable quality and quantity; it is not quantifiable; it remains a mystery.  Otherwise, we would all be able to predict which numbers would appear in a lottery, what stock market picks will be winners, and even be able to understand what a “commodities futures” is/are.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers suffering from a medical condition necessitating a filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Future Planning” can be difficult, at best.  How strong is your case; what is a realistic assessment of time frames involved; what can be done to enhance the chances of success; what will be a predictable amount of the monthly annuity; and many more questions, besides.

Contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin the arduous process of future planning — or just planning.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

FERS Disability Retirement from the Office of Personnel Management: How is it?

How is it that the world became the way it is without our knowing it?  How is it that the rules were already in place, the lands already divided, the waters already polluted, the debt already ballooning, the inventions already made — how did that come about, and who told us the history of the “what”, “when” and “where” of the past?  Can a society long endure while ignoring the past of how it developed and came into being?  And who gets to tell the tale of who we are, how we came to be, and why we are the way we are?

Berkeley’s epistemological approach was to confine knowledge to that which we can perceive, thereby attempting to limit the problems inherent in Being, Truth and Reality.  Like so many of the British Empiricists, philosophy was being reduced to mere “language” difficulties and, indeed, history itself may bear out their “rightness” in this question and problematic approach.  There is, of course, a quiet revolution going on about our past, our history, and the telling of who we are.  That is always a good thing, so long as “Truth” is the end-goal of such an endeavor.

But when Truth itself has become relativized as mere language games malleable in the hands for greater artificial intelligence, and where algorithms rule instead of human input which confines it within stated ethical boundaries (and even that is questionable, given the underlying motives and intent of human beings generally), then perhaps Wittgenstein was right after all; it is all a matter of who sees the “truth”, who gets to “tell” it, and who maintains the Tower of Babel in this universe of increasingly unfettered liberty.

In the end, the “how” of the world will forever be revised as perspectives, opinions and viewpoints change; but it is the “who” that controls the lifestream of information and historical data as to what is important; and in this Orwellian world where the glut of information has relativized all truths, we care less about the “how” than the “who”, anymore.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition now impacts the Federal or Postal worker’s ability and capacity to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s position, the history — or the “how — is important in preparing and formulating one’s Statement of Disability as posited on SF 3112A.  However, remember that all historical contexts must be provided in streamlined form; for, causality is not an issue in a Federal Disability Retirement application (whereas, in OWCP cases, it almost always is), and thus undue focus upon the “how” can detract from an effective Statement of Disability as reflected on SF 3112A.

The world around us may be concerned with the “How” of a question; for an OPM Disability Retirement case, it is the more current “what” that is the necessary focus of articulation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Thought versus thoughtless

Does the former have an advantage over the latter?  Our tendency is to think so — as in, “Being a thoughtful person is better than being a thoughtless person.  And, in any event, it is always better to think about things than not to.”

Really?  Does reality bear such a thought out, and does thinking about something as opposed to its opposite — not thinking about it — gain any advantage?  Does Man’s biological advancement through evolutionary selectivity of genetic dominance necessarily favor those who engage in the activity of “thinking” over those who do not?

Take the following hypothetical: An individual must make a “serious” decision — i.e., perhaps about one’s future, career, marriage, etc.  He is told to “take some time to think about it”, and does so dutifully.  He speaks with others; does some reading; mulls over and “reflects” upon the issue; takes out a yellow-pad and writes the columns, “Pros” and “Cons”, and after days, weeks, perhaps even months, comes to a decision.  Within a couple of years of making the decision, he realizes that he has made a fatal error.

Now, the counterexample: Same scenario, but in response, the individual says, “Naw, I don’t need to think about it.  I just go on what my gut tells me.”  He goes out, parties, avoids “thinking” about it, and the next morning makes that “important” decision.  He remains happy with the decision made for the remainder of his life.  So, the obvious query: What advantage did one have over the other, and what fruitful outcome resulted from “thought” versus “thoughtlessness”?

Yet, we persistently hear the phrase, “I should have thought about it,” or “I should have given it more thought” — always implying that, had further reflection been accorded, had additional wisdom been sought, or multiples of contemplation allowed, ergo a different result would have been achieved.

The error in the logic of such thinking is that one assumes a necessary connection between “result” and the activity of “thinking”, when in fact it is the very activity itself which retains a value in and of itself.  “Thought,” “thinking” and “thoughtfulness” are activities which have a value by themselves.  The satisfaction of a result-oriented, retrospective according of value based upon an outcome achieved is to place the value upon the wrong end.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are “thinking” and engaging in “thoughts” about preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, there comes a time when a “decision” must be made.  “Thoughtfulness” is an activity worth engaging in, regardless of the outcome of the activity itself.

In engaging such an activity, it may be worthwhile to seek the advice of an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law — if only to consider the evolutionary advantages in thinking about thoughtful activities as opposed to the thoughtless decisions made by an unthinking thoughtlessness.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The prerequisite of thought

What constitutes “thought” and fails to satisfy the allegation that one has not engaged in it?

Take the following example: A young man who is courting a young woman buys a bouquet of flowers on his way home, but stops by at her place just to say hello.  She — seeing the flowers — declares, “Oh, how thoughtful of you.”  He sheepishly smiles and nods his head, but in reality the flowers were to spruce up his own apartment.  He explains this to the young woman, and she turns a smile into its opposite — a frown — and reverses her opinion, telling the cad how “thoughtless” he is being.

In reality, he had done no such thing — he had, in fact, “thought” about it, only not in the sequence that the young woman had desired.  Yet, he is charged with being “thoughtless” — and one could argue that such a charge is applicable in that he should have “thought about it” before stopping by her place, and instead should have gone ahead and followed a route straight home.

Or, of another example: Say you are debating a point with another individual, or a group of individuals, and someone during the course of your monologue says, “It is clear that you haven’t thought about it.” What, precisely, does that allegation mean and imply?  Would it have made any difference if you had previously taken yourself into a corner, sat for an hour or two reflectively posed like the famous statue by Rodin’s “The Thinker”, chin upon knuckle in a reflective pose of self-absorption — then come back to engage in the discussion?

What if your contribution to the conversation included as great an expanse of idiocy as if you had not “thought about it” — but the mere fact that you had sat for a couple of hours, or perhaps a weeklong sojourn of contemplative solitude — does it make a difference?  Isn’t “thinking about it” often done in the course of give-and-take, during the conversation engaged, as opposed to being lost in one’s own mind?

Further, isn’t singularity and isolation of “thinking” often the wrong approach, inasmuch as you may be missing something, have inadequate information, illogical in the process because of selfish interests unrecognizable, and therefore the best kind of thinking often involves debate, countering opinions and other’s input, as opposed to the isolationism of “The Thinker”?

Would it make sense to ask a dozen or so physicists to “solve the mystery of the universe” by gathering them together, then making each sit in a corner and “think about it”, as opposed to engaging them in a “give-and-take” brainstorming session?  Isn’t much of thinking “done” by engagement with others, as opposed to a soliloquy of isolationism?  If so, then why is there too often a prerequisite of thought?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have “thought” about 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 first and most important step in making the “right” decision may not be by engaging in an isolationism of “thinking about it”, but by consulting with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law.

There is no prerequisite of thought in picking up the telephone and having an initial, free consultation with an attorney to discuss the particulars of your case, and engaging in the thoughtful exercise of considering OPM Disability Retirement by actively participating in the productive modality of thinking.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Retirement for Mental or Physical Incapacity: Gatherings

What is it about human beings that compel and necessitate it?  Unlike the wandering Cheetah or the lone wolf, human gatherings have been the imprint of psycho-social requirements since the dawn of day.  The tribal gatherings around the campfire; the Thanksgiving feast that celebrates survival and the new season; the corporate board, the large-scale concerts and the network of social media; and then, of course, that which is all but forgotten, and yet always yearned for: the private gathering of “just the family”.

Somehow, we lie to ourselves and soothe our own egos, suppress the truth by – again, “gathering” – the number of “friends”, “likes”, etc., and it has now become a quantitative game as opposed to a qualitative reality that determines how “happy” one is.  In modernity, we have lost the whole purpose and underlying foundation for what gatherings are meant to be – of the interchange between neighbor and neighbor, the opportunity to listen to elders and the basis for which a society survives.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who suffers from an injury or disability, such that the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal position, does the Agency, the immediate supervisor or fellow coworkers even “know” about the injury or disability, or even show any concern or care?

Each day, we “gather” together for a common purpose – for work, for the Agency’s “mission” and the “work-for-paycheck” agreement between employer and employee.  And, yes, there is a distinction to be made between a “social gathering” and a gathering intended for purposes of work and productivity.

Yet, there is something inherently amiss when one’s humanity is lost in the process of this thing called “employment gathering” – where no one seems to care about the next person, and when once the clock ticks to the closing hour, everyone departs to their own private gatherings, whatever that may be and wherever it may end up.  Of course, to invite a coworker to a home meal may constitute some form of harassment, and any gatherings to “pray” for another – regardless of what religion or denomination of belief it may originate from – is automatically excluded because of the offensive connotations of such an act; and so we are left with going home, each of us, and gather from a distance through the technology of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and email.

And yet, the Federal or Postal employee who has all along suffered from a medical condition, suffers still, and the only option left is to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the bureaucratic Office of Personnel Management, just because the “gathering” at work didn’t care enough to try and find a suitable accommodation for that Federal or Postal employee.  Go figure.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal & Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The source of despair

There are searches for origins and those for solutions, regardless of the source.  One hears about the “source of the Nile” or of the Mississippi river; or of the origin of the species, how Man came about to become who he or she is, why and what of the destination.  To ask, “From where?” is quite different from the query, “How?”  The former inquires as to the source of X, while the latter is more concerned with the rationality behind the origin.

There is thus a difference between the physical or spiritual source of the matter as opposed to what Aristotle deems as the fundamental principle that explains the ultimate and elemental foundations. For example, for Federal and Postal employees 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 question one might ask may concern the source of one’s despair.  Is it the medical condition itself?  Likely.

But is there a more fundamental principle – like the work that one engages in, the harassment and pressures one is exposed to, etc., that better addresses the concomitant query concerning the “how” question?  The origin of one’s despair may be due to the medical condition one suffers; but if one could focus and prioritize upon one’s health, would that not “solve” a great portion of the despair itself?

In order to do that, it is often necessary to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, precisely because the source of despair cannot be searched for within a vacuum of a medical condition exclusive of all other contributing origins.

There is, in addition to the medical condition, the realization that one cannot continue with one’s chosen career with the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service because you are no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of the Federal position or Postal work; and, further, a contributing factor may be the stress and pressure placed upon the Federal or Postal employee by the workplace itself, the hostility shown and the adversarial attitude of the Federal agency or Postal service.

Federal Disability Retirement may not be the full and complete solution to one’s source of despair, but it may be a necessary step in resolving the question as to “How” the burdensome source may be alleviated.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal & Postal Employees: Staring into nowhere

Except in the slumber of darkness, it is an impossibility of a feat unperformed; yet, the metaphor itself works well, because we all engage in those periods of vacant stares where someone suddenly nudges you back into reality and comments, “It was as if you were lost in thought.”  What does that really mean?

The fact that we can stare, perceive through organically mechanistic means of refractive light upon the cornea of our eyes and yet fail to be “conscious” about the bodily functioning of organs designed to perceive, evaluate, analyze and judge so that other predators may not surprise us for their mealtime delights, is indeed a mystery that evolution cannot fully account for.  Staring into nowhere is the physical capacity to be awake, fully conscious and have perfect vision and eyesight, and yet “see” nothing beyond the point of one’s protruding nose.

In an analogy or even a metaphorical sense, it is the loss of hope because of an inability to see a future bright and with excitable anticipation.  Remember those youthful days when the future yet remained as a potentiality unfulfilled and unable to be fully foreordained because of the unfettered plenitude of energy unbounded to be released forevermore?  We could barely contain the excitement to “get out there” and “show the world” what we are made of, the unleashing of one’s creative energy ready to “wow” the universe that had never seen the likes of such talent and reserve of energetic innocence.

And then something happened.  Life intervened; love paused; a leave of senses occurred.  Or, more likely, we encountered others who had the same hopes and dreams, and recognized that others had already trampled upon the unspoiled grounds of sacrosanct altars, and there was little left for us.  Then, with wisdom and experience somewhat under that proverbial belt, we moved on and adopted some more “realistic” goals, and were perhaps all the more happier for it.

Then again, perhaps a medical condition intervened, and a further and “real” reality set in – one that continued to debilitated and progressively destroy.  Medical conditions can do that to a person, and an agency’s insistence upon antagonizing and creating a hostile work environment somehow adds to the turmoil.

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 often the only way to ultimately escape that vacant staring into nowhere, precisely because it allows for a vantage point of future security to be recognized.

Staring into nowhere, while escaping into the impractical world of daydreams, may allow for relief for a moment, but the more effective perspective is to look at one’s circumstances, assess the Federal agency or Postal Service’s capacity to denigrate and destroy, and begin taking those steps in preparing for one’s future by considering filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Government Employment: Precedents and Contingencies

The former constitutes a prior event already established, which may influence and impact current courses and future decisions; while the latter reflects an unforeseen circumstance as yet uncertain, but one which must occur prior to triggering the subsequent act.  Both constitute events which, in their logical sequence, should be prior in time, and satisfied before going on to the next.

In law, without the precedent, there is no argument to be made, except to blaze new trails and create orientations for fresh ones, which can be a dangerous and uncertain line of argumentation.  In Hume’s laws of causal contingencies, the billiard ball which precedes the impact upon the subsequent one matters little, except for the non-existence of the “necessary connection” which is replaced by mere repetition of events.

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 employee or the U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, what matters is the sequential utilization of the duality of concepts.

Precedents of law are there to be argued as strengthening one’s own disability claim, by citing prior issues already decided upon primarily by the U.S.Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Contingencies are the pragmatic decisions made by the Federal or Postal applicant, determining the sequence of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, in order to present a cogent, coherent and persuasive Federal Disability Retirement case.

Federal Disability Retirement applications prepared and presented lacking the coherency of sequential establishment of contingencies unsatisfied, are tantamount to cases which have no precedents; and the duality of combined mishaps represent a meandering of a rudderless ship.  It is both together which make for an effective OPM Disability Retirement case:  the logical sequence of presentation, and the citing of relevant legal precedents in presenting an effective, coherent and persuasive Federal Disability Retirement application.  And, in the end, isn’t that what we are shooting for?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire