FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: Just Beyond

That is what makes you pause, yet unsure — the “just beyond”.  Maybe its a dream — but it is just beyond your grasp.  Perhaps the directions you were given — just beyond the next corner, just beyond the next town; or just beyond what even Google Maps can lead you to.

Or, in a Federal Disability Retirement case, it is the argument that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management makes in denying your Federal Disability application under the FERS system:  the insertion of a word here, an unfamiliar legal phrase there, always “just beyond” a suspicion as to whether they are correctly stating the legal criteria or the statutory authority cited in denying your case.

OPM systematically engages in such word-usage — of using phrases and inserting words which go “just beyond” the law, but in fact do not comply with the actual legal requirements.  And, as the individuals who make the decisions at OPM are themselves just beyond any accountability, they engage in such misuse and mis-application of the law with impunity, knowing very well that they will never have to answer for such mis-characterizations.

Thus, for example, does a denial of a Federal or Postal Disability retirement application often refer to the fact that “Social Security did not find you unable to be employed” — which may be true, but is a statement “just beyond” the laws governing a FERS Federal Disability Retirement application because what Social Security determines has absolutely no relevance to your FERS Disability Retirement application.

Or, OPM might say something like, “There is no evidence that your Agency could not have accommodated you beyond all possible means”.  Yes, but that is not the law; rather, the issue is whether your Agency could have “reasonably” accommodated you; not, whether you could have been accommodated beyond all possibilities within the universe of theoretical possibilities.

Again, OPM engages in legal jargon “just beyond” the boundaries of truth and integrity.  To make sure that OPM stays within the boundaries of statutory authority, contact a FERS Disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and always make sure that you apply the law not just beyond, but within.

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 Retirement from Medical Conditions: Proof to Conclusion

It has been pointed out by many philosophers that Socratic Method is not the manner in which most people conduct their lives in arriving at beliefs.

Rather than the traditionally-accepted engagement of searching for evidence and analyzing such evidence, then arriving at a conclusion based upon the strength of that evidence, the very opposite occurs: We first form our own conclusions, then accept any and all evidence which tends to support that belief, simultaneously excluding and ignoring any semblance of evidence which may contradict our firmly-held beliefs.

“Proof to conclusion” is the supposed paradigm; in reality, “conclusion without proof” is the working norm.

And, perhaps, part of the problem as to why we operate in this manner is because we are a nation of lawyers, and why the adversarial system is also “supposed” to operate in a dialectical manner where contending “proofs” are meant to clash and contradict, until the “truth” somehow dominates the adversarial contentiousness and makes its appearance in a persuasive manner; yet, somehow, it doesn’t seem to work in the way it is supposed to.

In reality, what law school teaches is the following:  “Here is the conclusion we want to reach; now, go and find the legal precedents which justify the conclusion which we have already reached.”

For Federal Government employees and U.S. Postal Service workers who are contemplating preparing an effective Federal/Postal Disability Retirement application under FERS, this manner of counter-rational — or, reverse-thinking — can be a detriment in putting together a sufficient Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

On the one hand, “Conclusion-then-proof” is somewhat of a “given”, inasmuch as the “conclusion” has already been reached:  That you have an impeding medical condition requiring the submission of a Federal Disability Retirement application, and the “proof” must thereafter be obtained.  On the other hand, the legal criteria required by Federal Disability Retirement Law looks for the Socratic Method — of providing proof, then allowing the governing body (OPM for Stages 1 & 2; the MSPB for Stage 3 of the Federal Disability Retirement process) to reach its own conclusion.

Thus, both the “traditional” method (otherwise known as the Socratic Method) as well as the counter-normative method are involved.

In either case, it is important to have the guidance of a Federal Disability Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, where both the Socratic Method and the Counter-Normative Method can be employed, where — in the end — the “proof to conclusion” can stand a chance to get an approval for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.

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 Employee Disability Retirement: Work Left Undone

That is why gardening and other similar endeavors help to calm the human mind; for, like the Zen of human existence, projects which have a starting point and end with results that can be observed with gratifying exclamations — like a rock garden finished and allowed to visibly appreciate — is a point in life which has been “done”.

Most of life’s work is that which is left undone — the son or daughter who left home too early; projects of which you participate in only a portion of; things you wanted to say but never had a chance to; dreams dreamed of but left as mere vestiges of feeble attempts left unfinished; and so we carry on with out lives, always with a detritus of abandoned work left undone.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have come to a point in their medical conditions where there now exists an incompatibility between work and health, it may indeed be difficult to leave the work behind — work left undone.  But there is still the future to consider: of work which still can be done; of prioritizing the primary work left undone — your health.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, and consider that the Federal work left undone can always be picked up by someone else, whereas your health cannot.

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 Help: Formality of Speech

What is the purpose of language?  Is it merely to be able to maneuver within and through this world — to be able to point to Object-X and declare, “I want that”; to issue commands; to engage in conversation; to argue a point?  Does it matter “how” one speaks, so long as the message is adequately conveyed or, is the formality of speech important?  Are there circumstances where formality is significant, even important, as opposed to the informal languages games which are bantered about among friends and intimate partners?

Does the language game of “Law”, for example, lend itself naturally, or even by necessity, to a semblance of formality, as opposed to the linguistic informality observed when a group of friends watch a football game?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, you must understand that Law as Formality of Speech lends itself to a seriousness of tone — of application of the legal rulings; the mandate of “must” in statutory language; and the logical argumentation which expresses a tenor of authoritative commandments within a specific language apparatus.

It is the job of a FERS Disability Attorney to convey the formality of speech as a lawyer, and it is in the very content and context of such formality which often wins the day in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, before the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

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: The Inevitable Constancy of Change

Change is a constant.  If you have lived long enough, the slow and incremental changes all around us — in the political sphere; employment; personal lives; the inevitability becomes palpable, and sometimes of concern.

Seasons change (unless, perhaps, you are in Florida); but the cyclical rhythm of returning to warmth after a long spell of Winter’s dread is a welcomed change.  When change becomes a forethought to dread, there is an inkling that something is wrong.

There are obviously changes for the good: Of new friends or family members (excepting the visiting uncle who arrives unannounced and expects to stay for a few weeks which turns into months); a child or a grandchild; of newfound wealth; of good luck suddenly encountered, etc.  Then, of course, the changes which undermine and impact with negative results: Loss of any kind; a sudden death; a medical condition.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition as a result of the inevitable constancy of change, contact a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider whether or not the change to becoming a retiree might not be the best response to the change resulting from a medical condition.

For, if change is an inevitable constancy, why not turn the bad into a good, and render unto the inevitability the rhythmic cycle of a season yet to be, of a greater preference than the static state of now?

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 Law: The Call Not Made

The call not made is the one regretted; for, it was the proverbial fork in the road, the turning point, the next corner, the event which could have unfolded unexpectedly to change one’s life.  Perhaps it was the follow-up not followed after a chance meeting with someone who might have become your life partner; a potential employer; a message left by a friend-of-a-friend; a distant relation whom you barely knew, but reached out for a reason left unclear.

The call not made is the one which you thought you could avoid, brush off, ignore, leave aside; but it is often the one which could have made a difference — if not in your own life, but in some other’s.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have been delaying the call not made — to a lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, under FERS — it is often because the potential caller knows, in one’s “heart-of-hearts”, that it is an inevitable call, and the one which is being delayed for fear of the change itself.  But change should never be feared, and ultimately the decision of change itself is an option that only you can determine.

The call itself will merely open up the possibility for future change, whereas the call not made forecloses it, sometimes forever.

Contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and make that call not made — yet.

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 Law: Foreign Lands

Reading essays about foreign lands is often challenging where reference points and contexts are often presumed.  One immediately reaches for one’s Smartphone in order to Google the locations in relationship to a country — is it in the south of France, close to Spain?  It is near Paris?

Why that matters is another issue — for, somehow, if we can recognize a known entity, it makes us more comfortable in reading further about a strange area unknown.  Even if we have never been to Paris, we recognize that it is a large metropolitan city and can therefore relate it to our own experiences.  Context is important; reference points to that which is familiar somehow makes for greater understanding, comprehension, and appreciation.

Entering or reading about foreign lands is somewhat akin to preparing an effective application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.  The entire concept is strange and foreign to somehow whose life has been dedicated to work and advancement.  To suddenly have to stop working because of a medical condition, and then to file for early medical retirement, is tantamount to traveling to a foreign land.

To be successful in a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, it is advisable to contact a “tour guide” — a disability attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and thereby show you the familiar reference points in order to maneuver through the best sights, avoid the dangerous areas and pitfalls within the law, and to get you to the endpoint of the entire process: An approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

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 OPM Disability Retirement Law under FERS: Valid Arguments

Wittgenstein discusses extensively the concept of “language games” — that various subjects, circumstances and professions may require a different kind of such linguistic anomalies.

Thus, when going to a store to buy a computer, you will enter into an alien type of language game quite distinct and different from other modes of linguistic engagements — where certain terms such as “software”, “connectivity”, “applications”, etc., and a whole host of other strange concepts may be thrown about during the course of a sale.

Such a language game is appropriate within the context of a specific set of circumstances, and other forms may not constitute valid applications.  It would be, for example, inappropriate to suddenly interpose another type of language game during the course of a “computer-speak” language game — like suddenly engaging in “therapeutic” language games, of the X-steps in grief counseling, or marriage counseling, etc.

Legal argumentation is somewhat similar to the imposition of a specifically appropriate — or “valid” — language game.  Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement case, it is important to recognize and apply valid arguments — ones which go to the heart and issue of a Federal Disability Retirement case.  While the “medical language game” will also be applied, it is the “legal language game” which persuades OPM when persuasive legal argumentation is the language game which must prevail.

Contact a Retirement Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin preparing an effective OPM Disability Retirement application by recognizing and applying the valid arguments which comprise the language game of Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Perspective Matters

How we see things; whether with a “positive attitude” or one colored with a negative turn; if one believes in the cause, or not; whether one’s initial reaction is one of anger and disbelief, or of despair; for, in the end, tackling issues is not a matter of right or wrong, but of how we view them.

Of course, a positive attitude alone will not necessarily get you anywhere; as reality abuts against the perspective we bring, it is often the combination of a “proper assessment” combined with our attitude and approach which makes all of the difference.  Are we seeing all of the alternatives involved?  Can a better argument be made in such a case?  Have we exhausted all of the avenues of evidentiary findings?  Have we chosen the best arguments?

G.K. Chesterton once wrote that Charles Dickens and H.W. Wells looked upon their respective fictional characters in vastly differently ways: The former, with a fondness like a father upon his children; the latter, with also a fondness — but like a butcher upon the chosen pig.  Both have a perspective of “fondness”; yet, it is an approach from very different directions.

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 job, Federal Disability Retirement should be an option to be considered.

A medical condition often impacts upon one’s perspective, you should consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law; for, perspective does indeed matter, and the best legal representation is one which objectively evaluates all perspectives that matter.  Consult with an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and see whether or not your perspective is the “right” one.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement from the OPM: Chessboard of Life

Is there a difference between an “Eastern” and “Western” perspective of life?  Does the fact that we play one kind of game (Chess) while Eastern nations play another game (“Go”) give us any metaphorical insight into such differences?

The Game of Go uses the intersecting points on a line full of square spaces; on a similar-looking board (depending upon the size of the Go Board), Chess uses the square spaces themselves.  The Game of Go is a more “fluid” one, where the black and white stone pieces will fill the board at the intersecting lines, and thus can move up or down, sideways or diagonally, depending upon the initiation and response of the players to one another.

Chess, on the other hand, can only essentially move forward.  Yes, the pieces can move sideways (the knight, queen and rook, for example) and diagonally (the bishop & queen), but the object of the game is to reach the opponent’s farthest line of square spaces, whereas the Game of Go utilizes the entire board with equal value.

Do the two “games” tell us anything about the way in which we live?  Do we “view” life as a chessboard, as opposed to a Game of Go, and is there a difference in such ways where one can make a conceptual distinction between the two?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the Chessboard of Life becomes a “match” between yourself and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

To “capture” their queen, you must maneuver your way past all of the threatening “pieces” of a Federal Disability Retirement application, and “checkmate” OPM with legal arguments and medical evidence that is persuasive enough.  Whether a different strategy as that applied in the Game of Go should be considered, depends upon the unique nature of your individual circumstances.

In either case, it is good to consult with a “Master” of either Go or of Chess — a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire