OPM Disability Retirement: The Preemptive Argument

There is always the danger accompanying it — That the presupposition was unfounded and you may be pointing out a problem that the other side never thought of.  We are all aware of what assumptions can lead to, and so to make a preemptive argument is to enter into dangerous waters where unseen dangers may lurk.

How does one make the right decision as to whether to include the preemptive argument and how prominently should one make it?  Such a question presupposes a cost-benefits analysis — of first determining how likely the other side will recognize certain weaknesses in your position, then providing the preemptive counterpoint accordingly.

In preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, whether at the initial Stage or at the responsive Reconsideration Stage of the process, the point of making a preemptive argument depends upon the purpose for which you are making it.

For, at the Initial Stage of the process, you should make such an argument in an understated manner, all the while emphasizing the overall strength of the case; whereas, in responding to an OPM Denial and providing a responsive legal memorandum, any preemptive argument should be made both as a response to OPM as well as a preemptive appeal to an Administrative Judge at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) — in other words, the elaboration of an anticipatory argument, presuming that OPM is likely to deny the case a second time, as well.

All preemptive arguments possess inherent dangers, but as OPM systematically engages in a shotgun-scattering approach in justifying its denial of a Federal Disability Retirement Application, it is likely that any preemptive argument is in little danger of bringing up any surprises which OPM hadn’t considered, anyway.

Consider contacting a FERS Attorney to prepare and formulate an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, especially when formulating a cogent argument of preemptive significance.

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 Benefits: Spare Me the Grief

How much of life is lived precisely because of needing to deflect the “grief” of something?  Or, of the corollary truth: How much of life is NOT lived by delegating the grief to a third party?

Then, you must separate and distinguish those things which are merely a “bother” from those which require specialized help.

Maybe cutting the grass takes up too much valuable time, and so you might hire a landscaping or grass cutting company to perform that chore, justifying the expense by pointing out that more quality “family time” could be reserved (as you then go out the back door to take in a couple of rounds of golf).  Or of hiring a cleaning service; taking your car to a car wash; hiring a lawyer.

Wait!  Are lawyers relegated to the same category as landscapers and car washes?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows you to perform all of the essential elements of your Federal or Postal job, contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

The OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in FERS Federal Disability Retirement Law may not wash your car or cut your grass, but he will surely guide you through the complex administrative process of getting you something more than a gleaming vehicle or a pristine lawn: A Federal Disability Retirement annuity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Postal & Federal Disability Retirement: Meaning & work

A book of very recent vintage, written by an anthropologist, uses an 8-letter epithet in its title.  While it is always dangerous to refer to something without having read it, the various book reviewers have provided enough insights to recognize that it involves a judgment upon employment, work and the meaninglessness of many jobs held by the population at large.

There would be, of course, some criticism as to the validity of such a judgment, given the nature of being an “outsider” as opposed to an “insider” — i.e., from the “outside” (e.g., the author/anthropologist himself who makes a living by selling books criticizing certain subjects) perspective, it may seem like certain types of work retain no inherent meaning, but from the “inside” perspective (i.e., those whose jobs it is to perform such tasks, and the companies, corporations and entities that require that such tasks be maintained), elements of employment that outsiders may deem meaningless may contain elaborate foundations of meaningfulness.

That was, of course, one of the criticisms thrown by Marx — of the separation of labor from the value of existence, arising coincidentally from the industrial revolution where mass production and assembly lines in factories that exploited labor resulted in a disillusioning effect because people no longer saw the fruits of one’s own labor (an aside: Does that explain why so many people think that the original source of beef, poultry and dairy products come from the storeroom of Safeway?).

How does one work, make a living and concurrently retain “meaning” in all, if not most, of the tasks performed?  Anyone who has been employed for any significant length of time comes to recognize that the three are distinct and separable: work is different from “making a living”, in that you can work for endless and tireless hours and yet not make enough wages to pay all of the bills; and whether you work long hours or not, and whether you can pay all of the debts incurred or have extra spending money at the end of each pay period, the “meaning” one derives from the work engaged is not necessarily attached to either the hours expended or the money earned.

For some, perhaps, meaning is never derived from the work itself, but merely from a recognition that the work is merely a means to an end — of performing tasks in order to earn enough wages to own a home, start a family and provide for a retirement, etc.  Or, for others, perhaps a deep-seated recognition is acceptable, that life itself is like the task that Sisyphus engaged in, and the toil of work is as the meaninglessness of rolling the boulder up another hill, only to see it roll back down again, and thus repetition allows for the futility of all tasks great or small.

One’s resolve and the will to impose meaningfulness in the face of alienation is a testament to man’s capacity to seek greater good.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the need to continue to find “meaning” in striving often is closely tied to the progressively deteriorating aspect of one’s health.  When one’s health is at issue, “meaningfulness” of one’s work may come into question, precisely because one’s capacity to view employment as a means to another end itself becomes a struggle.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, allows for one to reorient the priorities in life that should not be confused: Health, family, a sense of accomplishment, and somewhere in that mix, a career that may need to be changed, abandoned or otherwise modified because of one’s deteriorating health and the impact upon the meaningfulness of carrying on where to do so sacrifices one or more of the mixed priorities.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement from Federal Service: By what right?

It is a question often posed in the dead of night by those who would undermine an assertion based upon an instinctive sense of fairness, but perhaps not able to be articulated in comprehensible form.  By what right do you enter these premises?  By what right do you express that opinion?  By what right do you think you can do that?

It is, as with many questions, one that has a sadly contextual background of a negative past – for, whenever a person, a populace or a segment of a greater society begins to assert a “right”, it was generally preceded by a breakdown of community and caring.  For example: A violation of another’s property where a fence has not yet been placed should be resolved by two neighbors discussing the infraction or infringement without resorting to a higher authority.  If that “neighborliness” cannot resolve the conflict, then a fence may be built and the right to build such a fence can be asserted by the fence-building-neighbor as a “right” of property ownership.  No one would, or could, dispute such a right to do so, but the mere fact that a fence had to be built is evidence of a preceding breakdown of the unspoken rules of a community, where resolution of a conflict could not be accomplished by discussing, caring, understanding and compromising for the sake of a community’s greater good, but instead results in a declarative reference to one’s “right” to do X, Y or Z.

Rights should have the insipid connotation of negativity to the extent that asserting them is something of a last resort and the last bastion of scoundrels and suspicious individuals seen in an unfavorable communal light; but in modernity, shouting out one’s “right” to do this or that, or standing on a soapbox and pontificating about how we (why does everyone assume that he or she has a “right” to speak on behalf of that undefined “we” in the first place?) have every “right” to be here, do this or that or be “in your face” because of the proverbial “catch-all” – the “Bill of Rights”.  By what right?

For Federal and Postal employees who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it may well be that asserting one’s right to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits was preceded by a context of negativity – of the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal facility failing to, refusing to, or otherwise not showing effort for, accommodating one’s medical condition, illness or disability, and that is when the assertion of declaring one’s “right” to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits becomes the inviolable pathway to an exit out of an untenable workplace situation.

To that extent, preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is somewhat akin to building that “fence” between your property and the next-door neighbor’s, whose dog keeps coming into your yard, digging up the freshly-planted bushes and vegetables, pooping all over the place and attacking your cat, and cares not a twit to try and resolve the issue; that, in many ways, is the Federal agency or the Postal facility you work for.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Independence Day

Each country with a colonial past celebrates it; though, for some, separation may not have been accomplished through violent revolution, but via natural evolution by decoupling of cultural and economic ties.  Then, of course, there are individual demarcations of personal milestones; of becoming an adult; of the first habitat away from childhood memories; or even a first paycheck replacing the dependency of an allowance bundled in caveats of emotional connections veiled in subtle admonitions of responsibilities, adolescent resentments and the proverbial cutting of the lawn by a weekend warrior.

Time normally takes care of such sophomoric interludes, and replaces those seemingly significant torch-passings with other, more relevant and impactful events.  We tend to place great metaphysical significance upon a particular day, as the cornerstone and marker representing a transcendent relevance, and all the while allow for the symbols to disintegrate in the tatters of modern decay.

Revolutions rarely attain the goals sought; for, it is the days and decades thereafter which matter, in daily preserving an unextinguished light which remains fragile and dimming but for patriots who sacrifice for naught.  Clubs and associations form, like cottage industries propagated by deliberate avenues of greedy excess; the daughters or sons of this or that revolution, and lineage becomes of importance, while the names of unmarked souls lying anonymously beneath the bloodied soils where trumpets once blared and orders fulfilled, and the dying screams of sons crying out for motherless children left in the poverty of a forgotten past, fade as memories and the aged pass on.

Can a people who remembers not the dates of demarcating moments last for long?  Must nations celebrate in order to garner the enthusiasm of civic pride, or can mere greed, money grubbing endeavors make up for loss of flag waving and patriotic fervor?  In the end, it is how we treat the most vulnerable and weak, which reflects upon the ardor of our sincerity.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, and who must 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 question of independence is a significant one — for it is a turning away from that which continues to harm, whether through greater stresses upon the body, mind or emotional stability; and the severing of ties is a real one, and not just a symbolic quiver in a parade of trumpets and gleeful shouts; no, Independence Day for the Federal or Postal employee who successfully maneuvers through the bureaucratic maze of an administrative nightmare in order to attain a Federal Disability Retirement annuity, is a day indeed of significance and import.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Law Blog: The Mannequin

The garment may alter, but the pose remains stilted; and no matter what angle the inertia of fashion may be looked at, the expression remains impassive and impenetrable.  Mannequins pose for the public, display the wears without complaint, and fill spaces without disturbances or complaints.  They simply “are”.  Such an existence — of an uncomplaining coexistence with eyes meant to attract upon the changing appearances intended to detract — is often the very definition of a Federal employee or a U.S. Postal worker.

Like mannequins stilted in front of a display window, the Federal and Postal worker is often “there” for years and decades, quietly performing the work that is assigned, accomplishing without accolades but for internal performance reviews and peer ratings, expected to remain silent but for the wears which are displayed.  But then an illness, a medical condition, a disability suddenly enlivens, and the once quietude of existence becomes a focal point of harassment, workplace hostility and trends of gossip.

That mannequin was a person, after all, and interest is remarkably shown when ignoring and repetitive superficiality of meaningless salutations once pervaded the office or work environment.

For Federal or Postal employees, 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 often the best option remaining.

The eyes which merely looked beyond the stilted figure but are now upon the live entity, need to again be diverted, such that life can go on again.  To get beyond an environment of poison is to sometimes exit quietly and without fanfare; filing for Federal Disability Retirement is a way for Federal and Postal employees to step outside of the self-destructive hostility, and to rebuild the life once dreamed of by attending to one’s medical condition, first, while securing a future or a second vocation.

Once attained, perhaps those who surround with love and concern will look upon the mannequin beyond the mere appearances, and instead to the substance of the person beneath.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: The Relative Importance of Minutiae

Triviality is in the eye of the beholder; though, there are some aspects of certain information which almost all can agree upon to be insignificant; but in this universe of informational overload, it is often the small, precise and extended bits which make up for the connecting bridges of relevance.

For the culinary sophisticate, the fact that an octopus has four pairs of arms makes for a greater feast, and if one were to pause and consider that the loss of an arm in its flight from a fisherman’s net might be insignificant from a human standpoint, the capacity to survive in the treachery of the undersea world may depend upon that lost tentacle.

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 overarching focus is usually upon the grand scheme of things — of the relative importance of the key elements which make up for an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

In the rush to quickly put together a Federal Disability Retirement application, it is easy to fill out and answer the Standard Forms, especially SF 3112A, the Applicant’s Statement of Disability, attach a compendium of medical reports and records, and hope for the best.  But it is often just as much the attention to detail — the minutiae of the little things, the world of microcosmic bits and floating information in the body of office notes and progress reports, like insignificant algae which forms as a film upon the pond’s surface, which results in the basis of a denial by a scrutinizing OPM Specialist.

Like the tentacle found in the fisherman’s net, it is only the keen eye which can tell which of the four pairs of arms it came from, except of course for the octopus, who well knows from the sensation of pain from which it derives.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire