Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Disability Retirement: Off on a Tangent

It can be done inadvertently, without malice, and often unintentionally — and so long as one remains within the insular world of language, no harm occurs in most instances, in most circumstances.

Of course, to literally go off on a tangent — if you are walking in the wilderness without a compass; out in the deep sea in a small skiff; wandering about in a neighborhood known for drive-by shootings — can be quite another thing.

But for the most part, when we say that “So-and-so often goes off on a tangent” or “Sally has a tendency to go off on tangents”, we merely mean that the focus of the conversation, the content of the primary narrative, the point of the lecture being given, etc., the central idea, theme or point of someone’s statement, discussion “talk”, etc. is being waylaid by some divergent, often irrelevant side-show.

It is like a movie badly edited — you know, those scenes which often are “extras” which were taken out because of time-constraints or creative doubt as to their relevance to the story.  Or, sometimes people go off on tangents for a reason — deliberately and with intent — as when you want to divert the focus of the narrative away from the main point, precisely because the main point is not a very strong one to begin with.

In a Federal Disability Retirement case, this can happen on both sides — from OPM’s side, going off on a tangent can mean that they do not want to focus upon the medical reports and records, but instead want to deny you based upon tangential issues of performance ratings, conducts issues, accommodation offers, etc., as opposed to focusing upon the main point of a Federal Disability Retirement application: Your medical conditions.  Or, from the perspective of the applicant — the Federal or Postal employee filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits — of irrelevant background, or on issues which may actually weaken and harm a case.

Contact an OPM Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and make sure that you remain focused on the centrality of the multi-faceted issues presented in a Federal Disability Retirement case, and not on irrelevant issues by going off on a tangent.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Lawyer specializing exclusively on Federal Disability Retirement Law

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: The Perfect Case

If planning leads to perfection, does it necessarily follow that lack of planning renders its opposite?

There are rarely perfect cases in a Federal Disability Retirement application.  Most people do not go to their doctors with the predetermined view of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, and most doctors (other than those specializing in providing disability assessments, evaluations, etc.) are there to treat their patients in hopes of ameliorating the underlying medical condition.

If “planning” is what makes for perfection, then lack of planning — in other words, just “living life” — makes for the imperfect case, and that is where the U.S. Office of Personnel Management pounces upon and attempts to characterize such imperfections as a valid basis for denying a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Thus, it is important for a Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker to consult with a Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer once you begin thinking about the future need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  For, while there may never be a “perfect case”, some amount of thoughtful planning prior to submitting an OPM Disability Retirement application is necessary in order to get as close to perfection as possible.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Deterioration

It is a process; a cellular degeneration that time inevitably forces; and the word itself evokes images of rusting old cars in junk heaps hidden behind high walls of metal fences where usefulness has long been abandoned.  The deterioration of the human body is a progressive process of inevitability, and while we fight in futile efforts to slow it down, much of our efforts are merely cosmetic and have little or no impact upon the underlying progress of the cellular breakdown.

We can eat healthily; maintain good posture; take supplements and vitamins; exercise; stretch; attempt to restrict activities which may be harmful, etc.  Yet, and nevertheless, the deterioration of the human body persists despite all such efforts to employ tactics to reverse the normal course of human destiny.

The workplace — and certain types of jobs — certainly contribute to the deterioration of both the human body as well as the psyche.  Even in this day and age, we perhaps dismiss the psychiatric deterioration as opposed to the bodily degeneration, minimizing the impact of stress upon one’s mental health.  In the end, however, deterioration can apply to both physical as well as cognitive health.

For Federal employees and Postal workers who suffer from either physical or mental deterioration, and where the Federal or Postal employee can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, such deterioration may require filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Consult with an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law, and see whether the extent of your physical or mental deterioration qualifies for Federal OPM Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: Imperfect Lives

Bringing up the very concept itself implies that the opposite exists: That of “perfect” lives.  We perhaps attribute the existence of such; perhaps it is the same line of thought processes which persuades us by the Ontological argument for the existence of God: God is that than which nothing greater can be thought of; To exist is greater than not to exist; therefore, God must by necessity exist.  The corollary argument which persuades us of the existence of a “perfect” life would then be: The perfect life is a life which erases all imperfections; perfection is better than its opposite; therefore there must by necessity exist perfect lives.

Yet, does reality indicate the existence of perfect lives?  Certainly, its opposite is true: imperfect lives being all around us, including our own, we then assume that there must be other, similarly imperfect lives.  Yet, while perfection is a non-relative term (it cannot be dependent upon a comparison to other terms, but is the paragon of all things not imperfect), its antonym — imperfection — can be.  Thus, X’s life may be less perfect than Y’s, and Z’s life may be less perfect than Y’s but better than X’s.  Can we ever say that X’s life is “more perfect” than X’s or Y’s?  Doesn’t “more perfect” necessarily imply imperfection and thus cannot approach a definitional plateau of “more”?

The plain fact is that all of our lives are imperfect, and perfection is an unreachable goal, and perhaps even undefinable.  For, who can define perfection of a life which fails to ever meet such a standard, and given the sins of human frailty, can it ever be achieved?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position, the time may be ripe to admit and acknowledge that “perfection” is a standard which can never be met, and to try and maintain that appearance of perfection is an unrealistic goal.  Medical conditions have a way of humbling us; and as we keep struggling to maintain an appearance of perfection, what we are doing is failing to acknowledge that such a standard is a harmful, detrimental one.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is an admission of our imperfection; consulting with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law is a step towards acting upon that admission — that, try as we might, we live imperfect lives, and that’s okay; for, to err is human, and to file for FERS Disability Retirement benefits is to admit to being human.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Return to Who I Am

We all take on different roles — whether as a parent, a husband, a wife; of assuming the role each day of a supervisor, a worker, a doctor, lawyer, etc. The underlying “substratum” of the “I” is presumed to remain the same throughout, but there may be a difference in the character posed, the personality posited or the tone, tonality and tenor of a voice, inflection, the way you talk, etc.

Perhaps, on a “Take your child to work day” you bring along your son or daughter and he or she watches you work in a particular role. Afterwards, does the child think to himself — or express him or herself to you or some third person — and say: “Gee, Mom [or Dad] sure acts differently at the office.”

Actors and actresses take on a “double-role” of sorts, don’t they? They not only have to take on the role of a character, whether in a play or a part in a filmed venue, but moreover, to “become” someone other than the person Who I Am.

Is there a difference between “Assuming the role of an Accountant” and “Playing the role of an Accountant”? Certainly, the former must have some credentials — perhaps as a C.P.A. or some “financial consultant certificate”, or some degree in accounting — whereas the latter only has to “act like” he or she has merited such a status. And the clients who come to the former — they are presumably “real” people whose financial problems or quandaries are “real” as well, whereas in the “acting’ role, they are not real, per se, but are also assuming the role of a part for the sake of an audience.

In either and both cases — whether of being “real” or “acting” in a role — the person to whom one “returns to” is someone who is the substratum: For the child, it is “Mommy” or “Daddy”; for the spouse, it is the husband or wife who “went-to-work-and-is-now-home”; and for the life-long friend from childhood days, it may be “Oh, that’s Dan who works as such-and-such, but who is good ol’ Dan always and forever.” But whatever role one assumes in life, whenever he or she returns to that person “Who I am”, does he or she ever return as the same person, or is there always a slight difference?

For, whatever the experience encountered in the “role” one plays, doesn’t it always change the person such that the person to whom one returns to can never be quite the same as before?

That is what happens with the Federal or Postal employee who needs to file for FERS Disability Retirement benefits — Yes, the point of trying to overcome a medical condition is so that one can “return to who I am”; but in reality, that will never happen, precisely because the medical condition and the experience of enduring the medical condition has changed the person forever.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire