Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: The Narrative of Emotion

Often, when one has been embroiled in a prolonged battle with another person, an organization, agency, etc., the embattled state itself takes on a life of its own, and decisions which should be based upon a rational perspective, what is in one’s best interest, etc., are cast aside.  That is why divorce proceedings — ones which involve little children — are such traumatic events to witness.  But domestic relations litigation is not the only type of proceedings which tear at one’s soul.

Often, a Federal or Postal employee will be involved in countless years of procedural and administrative litigation — including EEO filings, formal grievances, lawsuits filed in Federal courts, etc. — which take their toll upon one’s family, one’s career, and one’s health.  Sometimes, the engagement of litigation becomes a way of life, and the daily turmoil constitutes the norm by which one lives.

When one’s health is impacted, however, the Federal or Postal Worker who considers filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, will sometimes allow for the years of battle to cloud one’s judgment.  While historical narratives concerning the background of one’s medical conditions may be somewhat appropriate in preparing and formulating one’s Federal Disability Retirement Applicant’s Statement of Disability, one should be cautious in filing a narrative of emotion — that exhaustive rant against a particular supervisor or coworker; against the agency; and against the world which has turned into an enemy of daily turmoil and emotional upheaval.

Focus upon the essence of a Federal Disability case.  It may be time to leave behind that prolonged state of embattlement, and find a quiet spot in the pasture of one’s future, and enjoy a day of peace by securing one’s future with a Federal Disability Retirement annuity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Respective Positions

The position of the applicant is a uniquely vulnerable one; for, as one who is requesting a benefit from a governmental entity, he or she is essentially powerless to act except in response to the agency’s determination on approving or denying a Federal Disability Retirement application.

There are certain “pressure points” which can be attempted, the efficacy of which is questionable but nevertheless engaged in:  repeated calls (although one may suspect that excessive inquiries may ultimately reflect in a detrimental way); attempted influences via backdoor channels; or perhaps a request for a Congressional inquiry through one’s representative; and other similar methods — some more effective than others.  But it is ultimately the respective positions of the applicant-versus-agency which defines the underlying sense of powerlessness-versus-power; for, in the end, the agency can make any determination it wants, with a basis of rationality or one which issues a complex and garbled statement of reasonings which may not possess any meaningful import as reflected in the law.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is a powerful agency which is granted a special position and status — one which is responsible for the administration of retirement issues impacting upon all Federal and Postal employees.  Such a position is indeed one of heightened sensitivity and responsibility; and while the respective positions of the “little guy” (the Federal or Postal employee) as opposed to the “big guy” (the U.S. Office of Personnel Management) comes down to nothing more than individual human beings, it is the status granted to the latter which makes all the difference, and those within the agency should take such a position with the utmost of seriousness and gravity.

Ultimately, most case workers at OPM are doing the best they can with the tools and manpower provided; from the viewpoint of the applicant waiting for his or her Federal Disability Retirement application to be determined, however, that sense of vulnerability — where one’s future is “on hold” until an action is initiated by OPM — is what makes the entire process a frustrating one.

In the end, there is nothing which can change the respective positions of the applicant-versus-agency, until an approval from OPM is granted, and the status of “applicant” is then transformed into one of “annuitant” — at which point, a new set of respective positions are imposed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Surprise in the Universe of Reconsiderations

Until the science of Physics can implement the ability of molecular and particle transference technology (i.e., “Beam me up, Scotty”), there is little potential of resolving the Cartesian mind/body dualism (i.e., that French Philosopher Rene Descartes, who bifurcated the world between the material and the spiritual). But such dualism in philosophical terms does not mean that we can be at two places at one time; or even attempt to be “objective” when the subjective “I” is the very same person who is attempting to appear objective.

In Federal Disability Retirement law, when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issues a denial letter, the customary response by the denied OPM applicant, whether a Postal Worker or a non-Postal Federal Worker, is that he or she is “surprised” by the initial denial because of the strength, completeness, and thoroughness of one’s Disability Retirement packet.  But that should be a given.

No one who files with OPM should do so without meeting the requisite foundations of thoroughness or completeness.  But this is where the problem is:  the very person who determines that a Federal Disability Retirement application is sufficient, is the same person who suffers from the very medical conditions of which the application speaks about.

The subjective/objective coalescence makes for a difficult mind/body dualism, in that the one who suffers from the medical condition can hardly assess and evaluate, in an objective manner, the strength of the Federal Disability Retirement application.

Thus, the Cartesian mind/body dualism lives on, and until Captain Kirk can guide us otherwise, such bifurcated dualism will continue to pervade all Federal Disability Retirement applications, whether under FERS or CSRS, and the denials which follow will still have the familiar response of, “Surprise!”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: The Effective Narration

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, it is often difficult to maintain an objective perspective on one’s own case, precisely because of the intimate knowledge, relationship, and involvement one has with the particular medical conditions one suffers from.  

Sometimes, of course, “maintaining an objective perspective” can backfire — where the argument made or the formulation of the applicant’s statement of disability, conveys little or no emotional undertone.  But the opposite of that particular perspective is normally the case — where one’s own personal involvement and relationship to a case fails to state the facts, circumstances, medical elements and their relationship to one’s inability to perform one’s job, in a manner which is neither coherent nor relevant.  

In preparing and formulating a Federal Disability Retirement application, the problem with a narrative involving one’s own medical condition is not because of its emotive content, for such emotional substance can often be effective in persuasive discourse; rather, the problem with it normally has to do with the coherence of the narrative itself.  

Emotion is necessary for the conveyance of genuineness; only, don’t let the emotion get in the way of telling one’s story.  For the true narrator tells the tale such that the audience feels the heart of the story, without ever knowing that the narration itself is the cause of the emotional upheaval.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: The Proper Balance

The Office of Personnel Management has sent out a number of denials in recent weeks, and the undersigned attorney has had multiple opportunities to review many of the cases which have been submitted at the Initial Stage of the process, by Federal and Postal workers who are or were unrepresented by an attorney.  

The spectrum of the quality of the applications vary; some have obviously engaged in some research, and attempted to put together a Federal Disability Retirement application by following some guidelines which have been put forth.  But in most cases, there is still the problem of an “imbalance” — of not reaching the correct median between the subjective and the objective; of an inability to stay away from the workplace issues, of harassment, of complaints about the Agency, etc.  

Remember that this is first and foremost a medical disability retirement application, and the operative term which should always be focused upon and emphasized is the “medical” aspect of the formulation.  While there is ultimately no formulaic Federal Disability Retirement packet (precisely because the particular medical condition which is unique to each individual resists any such attempt to package a Federal Disability Retirement application in a generic sort of way), nevertheless, there are certain key points which should be addressed and emphasized, while other “non-key points” should be avoided.  

Put in a different way, in proving that a medical condition prevents a Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, one must include multiple “essential elements” in meeting the burden of proof.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: Objectivity & Credibility

Whether justified or not, the conceptual interconnection between objectivity and credibility is inseparable.  This general rule is no different in filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.  The appearance of objectivity naturally lends itself to credibility of an application.  If too much emotional fervor is infused into an application, the credibility of the application is immediately undermined.  Now, because any discussion concerning a medical condition, the impact of a particular medical condition upon one’s ability or inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of a job; impact upon one’s personal life, etc., inherently and necessarily encapsulates an emotional perspective, does this mean that most — if not all — disability retirement applications are somewhat undermined at the outset?  No, of course not.  The characterization of the application; the tone, tenor and approach, are all conveyed in the narrative of the application.  This is precisely why it is often dangerous for applicant to be one and the same as the person who prepares the Federal Disability Retirement application.  The subjective cannot become the objective without great effort; and few are able to expend the proper effort to effectuate the balanced tone of objectivity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal & Postal Service Disability Retirement: Personal v. Objective

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is a personal matter.  It is personal precisely because it is considered as an admission of a disability; it goes to the heart of what a person does in life — one’s livelihood, one’s means of support; and it goes to the perception in our society of the “worth” of an individual — financial worth, productive worth, worth in terms of the ability to support a family, and worth in terms of one’s contribution to society.  Because it is so personal, it is difficult to “objectively” assess and evaluate a disability retirement claim, by the individual who is thinking about filing for such a benefit. 

That is often why it is important to have an attorney represent an individual who is considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  Often, when I am hired at the second or third Stage of the process, I read the initial submissions of the client, and find that the “personal” has indeed overtaken the “objective”, precisely because the very subject of the disability retirement process — the applicant — had to undertake the very personal process himself/herself.  Such personal subjectivity cannot see beyond the very personal nature of the medical condition, and when that happens, it is almost too personal for the OPM representative to make an objective assessment of the case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The Attorney’s Role

It may sound harsh; it may even sound “mean”; but I often tell my potential clients that I am not their therapist, doctor, or empathy-advisor.  I am their attorney.  When advising people to respond to an Office of Personnel Management denial with some “discretion”, it is often difficult for an individual who is so closely tied with his or her own case, to remain objective and detached.  Yet, detachment is the mark of professionalism, and that is why the old adage is true — that an individual who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. 

My job as an attorney who represents Federal and Postal employees to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS & CSRS must be guided with a focus of understanding the factual context, the medical conditions, the type of job, the symptomatologies manifested by the medical conditions, and apply the law governing disability retirement issues.  If I become a therapist, it detracts from my focus; if I become an empathy-advisor, I become “attached”, as opposed to de-tached.  That is not to say that I will not listen to the relevant medical background (note the confusing double-negative, which merely means that yes, I will listen, to some extent) — I certainly will.  But only to the extent that will allow me to win the case for my client.  For, that is my job:  to get an approval from the Office of Personnel Management.  If I am successful at that, then my client will have gained all the needed empathy of the world:  a semblence of financial security.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire