FERS Disability Retirement: Knowledge & Application

It is assumed in the West that knowledge, in and of itself, is a valuable thing.  And in this country, periods of pragmatism overtake that viewpoint, but always seem to revert back — otherwise, how else would we persuade children to spend countless hours sitting in a classroom, year after year?

As “making a living” has become the primary focus of society in general, there is an ever-pervasive tension between knowledge for its own sake as opposed to knowledge that is “useful” (translation: the “know-how” to make a living).  This is a tension that every society must grapple with — of becoming educated as an end in itself or as a means to a different end.

Few believe that there is a downside to having a good education, but a well-educated populace that lives in poverty cannot for long sustain its justification for perpetuating inapplicable knowledge.  Society must always maintain a balance between theoretical knowledge and applied knowledge.

Law is a discipline which straddles the fence between the theoretical and the practical, inasmuch as it engages in conceptual/intellectual issues, but concurrently, must be able to be applied in the everyday lives of people.  For example, in domestic relations law, there are overarching conceptual principles focusing upon what constitutes “the best interests of a child” in a custody battle, but in the end, the practical application of determining a workable visitation schedule must be hammered out between the parties involved.

Similarly, in Criminal law, while a society may adopt a conceptual apparatus as to whether “reform” is the goal or “punishment” is the justifying foundation for a lengthy incarceration imposed, nevertheless, in either case, society must consider the practical issue of protecting its citizens from further harm which may predictably be committed by the party found guilty.

In a similar fashion, for Federal employees and U.S. Postal employees who file for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the FERS system, knowing the Law and cases governing Federal Disability Retirement is essential in engaging the bureaucratic process, precisely because Federal Disability Retirement benefits is not merely about the medical condition in and of itself, but involves a complex consortium of issues in relation to the job one is positioned in, whether the Agency can accommodate an individual’s medical disabilities as well as what constitutes a legally-viable accommodation, as well as a whole host of other similar issues.

Here, knowledge precedes application, and having a ‘working’ knowledge of the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement in order to apply it at each stage of the administrative process is a necessary prerequisite before considering even applying for the benefit.  Yes, there are rare cases in which the medical disability is so severe and clear-cur that the medical documentation is and should be sufficient unto itself; but that is a rare case indeed.

As such, at whatever stage of the process one finds oneself in the Federal Disability Retirement bureaucracy, you may want to consult with an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes exclusively in Federal Disability Retirement law in order to have not only the knowledge but the practical application of proceeding against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in fighting for your FERS Disability Retirement benefits.

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.

 

Federal Disability Retirement Law: Goodness in Dark Times

It is the famous question brought to the fore by Hannah Arendt and others in the aftermath of WWII.  The trial of Eichmann brought some clarity to the issue; of the banality of evil; of the trial of human goodness in contrast to questioning the existence of evil.  Faith was said to be lost in the aftermath; for, how could a God who purports to be pure goodness, allow for such evil to dominate?

Camus warned of humanity’s descent into further darkness; that the mass concentration camps were not the end, but merely the beginning of wider and more ferocious depravity.  The question really was never how there could be goodness in dark times; but rather, why or how there could be goodness at all.

Since WWII, modernity has strived — albeit, rather in a fumbling and ineffective way — to reeducate children to engender greater empathy for one another; to stamp out (or at least, divert) man’s inherent “evil” within; to try and prevent the predilection towards violence, etc. Then, of course, the Internet was created; Social Media exploded (or imploded); the pandemic exponentially heightened; and the rest is history — of dark times in greater numbers; the selfishness of the ultra-wealthy; the rise of autocratic regimes and the reemergence of greater evil.

In the end, it is not the question of goodness in dark times which matters, but rather, how to extend, to the extent possible, some iota of goodness within the times we live in.  Laws, in the end, and the abiding of laws, are the only hope we have.

For Federal and Postal employees needing to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under the current Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, goodness in dark times is defined by the ability to manage your life despite the dark times.  Chronic medical conditions can be overwhelming and appear to present a period of unending dark times in your life.  Fortunately, the laws governing FERS Disability Retirement provide some amount of goodness and point to a brighter future.

Contact a FERS Medical Retirement Attorney, that is a legal expert who specializes in Federal Worker Disability Retirement law, and consider that there is still some goodness in dark times.

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.

 

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Retirement: Against The Wall

It is variously described — an obstruction; an obstacle; but seen from the inside, it allows for privacy and protection.  Think about the story of the Three Little Pigs and the differing materials of construction, where the first two failed in implementing a secure-enough wall to withstand the forces of the wolf’s cunning attacks.

In every phase of life, we encounter them; how we view them, what we do when we see them as obstructions as opposed to insulating, protective entities — it reveals much.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are intending to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “the wall” is represented by OPM itself; for, they hold all of the proverbial “cards” in approving or denying a Federal Disability Retirement case.

You, the Federal or Postal applicant, stand on the left side of the wall.  How you climb over the wall onto the right side — an approval from OPM — depends upon how you maneuver against the wall.  Do you go against the wall by sheer luck and lack of forethought?  Or, do you build or buy a ladder — metaphorically speaking, of course — which includes logical and legal argumentation?

Contact an OPM Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and stop banging your head against the wall, and instead, begin to build the solid foundation which is built to overcome the obstacle between you and a Federal Disability Retirement.

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.

 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Disability Retirement: Village Narrative

When was it lost?  Does it become fractured and irrelevant once a society grows too large, looms too complicated, decides to go off in different directions?

Once upon a time, villages had a specific narrative, identifiable, accepted, the mythology of its unique character.  If you came from Village-X, you knew the narrative — the story of your group, where you came from, what gods controlled the universe, who fought bravely, how you came about.  A stranger from another village had a different narrative; it was called Village-Y-narrative.  They had strange ways.

Perhaps there was trading between the two; sometimes, inter-marriage occurred and the complications of rearranging belief-systems to accommodate any differences had to be allowed for.

In today’s society, the village narrative has all but disappeared.  Not only has it disappeared — but even within the fractionalization, there are further micro-fractures, where no one can agree even upon the most fundamental of core beliefs.  That is when empathy disappears, replaced by laws and statutes to maintain some semblance of order and structure.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows for the Federal or Postal employee to perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the village narrative of working as a “team” with the Federal Agency or Postal Unit can no longer remain compatible.

Does the Agency show any empathy?  Or are they simply ignoring the problem?  Will you be placed on a PIP?  Will you be terminated?  Is the “village” out to banish and get rid of you?

Contact a Retirement Lawyer who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law.  It may be already time to find another “village”, inasmuch as the current village narrative no longer includes you.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Retirement: Ostensibly

Apparently; on the face of it; in all appearances.  Isn’t that how OPM views all medical disability retirement cases?

It is as if the “medical specialist” opens each file before reviewing it, with a notation under his or her breath, of: “Ostensibly”.  And so the challenge is on — of persuading from the presumptive world of the “Ostensible” to the world of approval where appearances are turned into reality.

How does one do that?  Why are some Federal Disability Retirement applications more persuasive than others?

Of course, there will always be the “irrefutable” cases; then, some cases which fall in the “probably no chance” category, simply because there is not enough medical evidence to persuade; then, as with most cases, somewhere in the middle kingdom where the coalescence of medical evidence, the law, agency actions or inaction, with a dash of concurrent and parallel legal issues must be all taken into consideration in their aggregate evidentiary presentation.

Ostensibly.  By all appearances.  That is the challenge — to persuade OPM that the ostensible is the real.

Contact an OPM Disability Retirement Attorney who deals only with OPM Disability claims, and begin the process of putting together an ostensibly viable Federal Disability Retirement case and turn it into the reality which brings about an OPM approval.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

FERS Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: The Difficult Case

At the outset, all Federal and Postal employees should know that there are rarely any “easy” cases in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Are most cases, therefore, “difficult”?  Yes.  And the reasons why they are difficult vary and are many — for, in the end, Federal Disability Retirement is not merely a matter of the nexus between the medical condition and the Federal employee’s inability to perform all of the essential elements of his or her position; rather, it is about meeting the legal criteria and passing the scrutiny of a Federal Agency — the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — in becoming approved.

Yes, yes, of course the medical condition matters; and, yes, where the impact of the medical condition upon the essential elements of one’s job can be established, a great part of the case has then been proven.  But then there are the “details” of the case; of accommodations previously requested and provided, or not provided; the input of the supervisor’s statement; the question of any misconduct; whether and for what reason a person was separated from Federal Service prior to submission of the FERS Disability Retirement application, etc.

Every case is filled with potential difficulties, and thus is it important to consult with an attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law, lest the “difficult case” turn into an “impossible” one.

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

 

Medical Annuity after a Disability in the Federal Workplace: Formulaic writings

It is both of predictability and boredom that we seek when enjoying such genres of form and content – of the “formula” in a who-dunit, or a love story that brings together two unlikely individuals in their awkwardness and geekiness, but somehow overcomes the considerable odds and obstacles placed in their way (and we don’t ask, in a 2-hours snippet, how can so much happen to two people when not even a smidgeon of such events were faced in our entire lifetimes?) and ending with an orchestral crescendo that brings tears that raises handkerchiefs throughout the audience, which we all quickly stuff into our back pockets with embarrassing quickness when the lights are turned on.

But that formulas could be applied to real life, and not just in presentations that appear slick, without error and marketed with such efficiency that we think it is just that the “other person” is naturally good at it, and we are not.  But that’s the point, isn’t it?  Formulaic writings, formulaic plays, formulaic movies, formulaic – lives?

Perhaps it exists in the fictional world of fairytales and corporate pathways where certain individuals – whether because of the family name, the tradition of old wealth, or those “connections” that the inner circle depends upon for their very survival – are groomed towards reaching the top in some predetermined formulaic manner.  But for the rest of us, our lives are more likened to the undisciplined ocean where storms come at unexpected and unpredictable moments; strong surges and wind currents destroy that which we have so carefully built; and our ship’s rudder suddenly fails to guide or lead us towards our intended destinations.

There is no formula.  We are left without a map, less a compass, and more and more without the guidance of our parents or grandparents because, they, too, have become as clueless as the rest of society.

And for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suddenly find that a medical condition has interrupted their career goals, hope for the future and dreams of security – preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, may become a necessity.

Then, when one researches and looks at SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, one realizes that the questions posed are the same posed to everyone who files – and so the information requested is based upon some “formulaic” approach from the agency’s side of things; but what about the individual Federal or Postal employee’s side of it?  Is there, also, a “formulaic” approach to winning a Federal Disability Retirement case?

Like everything else in life, it always seems as if the slick advantage that the large bureaucracy possesses is overwhelmingly in favor of going against the Federal or Postal employee.  However, there is, indeed, a “formulaic” response – and that is the “laws” that govern Federal Disability Retirement.

Life in general may not always have a winning formulaic approach, but in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is best to at least garner the formulaic support of the laws that protect and preserve.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: The fading sheen of respect

It happens over time; and, perhaps, in marriages where discovery of once-cute characteristics become irritants, when tics of unique personalities transform into obstacles, and the surface beauty of looks gradually morph into the reality of superficiality of egocentric psychosis.  But, then, a career is like a marriage, but lacking the intimacy of misguided warmth.

Disdain – does it develop instantaneously?  Does the remark of condescension and arrogance, cutting into the soul by drips and drabs, meter the suspicion that something is amiss, that someone has been whispering untold gossips of tidbits and tadpoles still swimming but lacking the croak of the frog disguised, and never to be kissed or metamorphosed into a princess of fantasy and fairytales?

When and how does loss of respect occur?  Is it in incremental clutches of shifting sand dunes, like the mirage which appears and when we reach it with thirst and desire, disappearing without but a trace of salivating want?  The scornful expression of familiarity; is there anymore a depth of intimacy the closer we become with one another, or does the essence of human depravity prevent such soul mates to bond?

Have we become cynical, to the extent that we no longer recognize the essence of human goodness, and instead – as the Darwinian paradigm of pure materialism has pervaded every crevice of our thoughts and beliefs – we have all accepted the maxim that life is but an insignificant blip on a linear scale of colossal vacuity, where the speck of life is but a mere comma in the breath of the vast universe, and how man is not just below the angels, but nothing more than mere fodder for predators to devour?

Does relevance, significance, and purpose of living – that composite and aggregation of teleological meaning – no longer apply in a world where essence is defined by material possessions and the quantitative quality of crassness of existence?

It is often asserted that respect is earned, not by mere ascription or claim to status, but by merit of behavior and ascension to knowledge; but in this day of modernity when all opinions are of equivalent moral value, and those with megaphones can drown out the quietude of truth and logical validity, the sheen of respect for all has been diminished by the mere devaluation of the essence of human worth.

A sheen upon an object is cared for and vigorously attended to; the fading of it means that the owner or caretaker has allowed it to slowly, incrementally and progressively deteriorate; and these things always lose their brilliance over time.  Not in a day, a month, or even over the course of a year, but by subtle carelessness of constant neglect.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition has impacted upon the ability and capacity to shine forth like those days of yore when energy was unmitigated, future hope was always a reminder, and where the brilliance of each hour was still to come, the fading sheen of respect shown both by the agency one works for and the coworkers’ company one cherishes, may be on the downturn.

If so, that Federal or Postal employee may want to consider preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, if only because such loss of respect is reflective not merely upon the personhood of you, but upon the essence of human degradation.

In many ways, “moving on” to the next chapter of life beyond being a Federal or Postal employee is a step towards maintaining and guarding the residue still remaining of that respect which once was, but now fades in the sheen of devalued and obscured images of a person who once was, still is, but is seen as merely an object of derision, and not that worthy employee who forms the essence of a past now forgotten.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The heckler

We see them from afar, as lone voices suddenly erupting with disruptive force, often barely audible, sometimes unintelligible, but rarely unnoticed.  In some corners of the world, their acts can become dangerous; inciting violence, being put upon by the surrounding crowd; their license to interrupt has been somewhat muted by the responsive threat of retaliation, voiced in more recent days.  Most of us sit back and wonder who “those” people are — such fury and passion to deliberately interject without invitation or welcome, and with the full knowledge that the subsequent events will lead to being either escorted out in less than gentle ways, or set upon in more violent fashion.

Are there causes which still exist, worth fighting for, anymore?  Is it just boiled-over frustration against a political firestorm of ineptitude and economic vicissitudes which leaves the ordinary person powerless and voiceless?  Or, is that interruptor a paid badger from another camp, merely acting as an apparently passionate interlocutor, but nothing more in reality than an employed spoiler to reveal the disarray of discontent allegedly felt by the greater populace?

It is a tradition of American politics, certainly, to have the presence of at least one heckler rise from the quietude of the sheep’s fold; and like the wolf covered by the lamb’s clothing, with barely an eye peeping through to gauge the exact timing for the sudden uproar, the impertinence of a question posed, a harassing shout and a barrage of epithets and garbled sentences drowned out by a sea of groans from around; does it all really matter?

There have always been hecklers of time and badgers of dishonor; and like the crowd which follows blindly in sequence of movements, such temporary interruption of a planned event is but merely a nuisance of life tolerated.  How we treat the heckler is but a reflection of life itself. For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have a similar interruption of “the event” of life, such as a medical condition which cuts short the Federal or Postal career, and where a responsive interlude must follow — 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, is often the only choice left, and the best alternative to pursue.

Suddenly, it becomes the “quiet one” who must turn and heckle; for the Federal Disability Retirement applicant is often that part of the crowd which never made waves and rarely complained, but merely went about his or her business and accomplished quietly the “mission” of the agency or the daily repetition of work at the Postal Service.  Then, suddenly, the Federal or Postal worker was “singled out” as the “troublemaker” — all because of a medical condition which the Federal or Postal worker never asked for, never wanted, and rarely complained about.  But like the heckler who knows of the oncoming consequences, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is surely a cause worth fighting for — despite the rude exit which is certain to follow.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire