OPM Medical Retirement Legal Representation: The Bully and the Beast

Yes, yes, the title is all wrong; but that “other one” is for fairytales and childhood memories, and not for the ugly reality that is faced by grownups with the cynical perspective that, by age 30, has come to overwhelm and dominate.

“C’mon”, the refrain comes back, “let’s at least enjoy the childhood fantasies that still delight and enrapture the imagination, and quit being a spoil-sport!”  Yet, just as the idealistic twenty-something becomes a crotchety-old fifty-something, so the reality of the Beauty and the Beast — of the traditional story told in so many variations involving the beast that is of beauty beneath; of the nature of appearances as opposed to the substantive reality; of pithy sayings by parents who want to spare the feelings of their unattractive children that beauty is “only skin deep”; of higher academia where such childish notions then get transformed into “Platonic Forms” or the Aristotelian “substratum” — is the cold world that we all come to know.

Somewhere in one’s mid-thirties, the conclusion is reached that, No, the world is not reflected in the fairytale as recalled, but rather, the universe is occupied by the Bully and the Beast, and we are too often caught and trapped in the middle 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 “Bully” is too often represented by the Federal Agency or the Postal Service and its manner of treating a sick employee; and the “Beast” is the alternative — of the constant harassment; the reprimands; the adverse actions threatened or proposed; and perhaps even represented as the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and the entire administrative nightmare known as “Federal Disability Retirement”.

For, once upon a time we were all children and dreamed about fairytales and fantasies; but somewhere along the way as we “grew up”, we came to realize that the world was not occupied by gnomes, goblins and cute hobbits scurrying about in the wild forests of our own imaginations, but by the ugly reality that the world is populated by people who are not very nice, and that sickness does sometimes hit the nicest of us, and oftentimes filing for Federal Disability Retirement is the best choice to make between the Bully and the Beast because the Beauty and the Beast had faded long ago into the warmth of childhood memories forever faded.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement under FERS & CSRS: Weekend Survival

The segmentation of time may be artificial; the rhythms of life, are not.  The 7-day week, 30-day month (give or take a couple here and there) and the 12-month cycle constitute human constructs that impose a rigid system of divisions based upon productivity, leisure, an admixture of both (isn’t it universal that Saturdays are spent in doing chores otherwise unattended to during the week, and Sunday is that respite and escape in total destitution of depleted dreariness?) and then a reset button pushed and the beginning of the cycle all over again.

Yet, while the system itself is based upon a conceptually artificial construct, the rhythmic underpinning of nature that glides above and beneath on a daily, quiet but consistent basis remains unperturbed.

That is why Daylight Savings Time makes grouches of us all — it is another artificial construct that jolts everyone from the natural rhythms of monotonous apathy twice a year, and breaks up that flow of biodynamic symbiosis between the planetary rotations, the daily sunrise and sunset, and the body’s reaction to a natural order within the constructs of an unnatural way of living.  The only compensation we feel grateful for is that extra hour of sleep that we are “given” in the Fall — only to have it stripped mercilessly and robbed from us in the Spring.

Thank God for the weekend — those two days of respite and leisure; of restorative rest and a quietude away from the mad dash of work and productivity; and we believe that we owe to the gods our lives and sacrifice our health for those pittance of days that are given to us.  But what are those 2 days worth?

Half of one is given up to do those things that we had no time to do during the five days of labor; the other half, spent in frozen immobility in front of a screen that blasts frightful images both from news of the “real” world as well as stories that are supposedly “entertaining”.  Then, with the one day remaining, we try and compensate for the exhaustion from the previous 5+1, only to wake up the following morning to engage the rush of the work-week that suffers and harms.

For Federal employees and Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition becomes a trial of survival during the week in order to make it to the weekend just to survive, it is worse because — not only is the “natural” rhythm interrupted by the medical condition itself — days, weeks and months all meld and melt into a singular whole of survival and consternation of life’s trials.

Preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, may be the only option remaining in order to re-order the rhythm lost in the daily struggle to reach that weekend survival where the cycle of life’s natural rhythm has been shattered by the trauma of a chronic medical condition.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Law: Argumentation

What makes for a “good” argument?  Is it when voices are raised, or can a quietude of mere whispers that nevertheless persuades become the greater efficacy for effectiveness?  Does it matter “who” the person arguing is, as opposed the position taken, the logical connections made and the avoidance of fallacies left unstated?

Take the following hypothetical: A debate challenge is set between a champion debater, known throughout the country as a persuasive arbiter of words, phrases and posited language games, who encompasses the paradigm of the greater user of fallacies, linguistic tricks and ad hominem twists of convoluted word-play that confuse, obfuscate and confound – and a young teenager who is a son of a minister of whom everyone agrees is an upstanding citizen of the county, whose moral positions on matters reflects a character throughout a lifetime of “living what he preaches” (yes, yes, the cynic would say that that type of person is the one who, in his private life is likely the meanest SOB you ever knew, but let us set aside that ugly fact for the sake of this hypothetical).

The issue to be debated is, “Whether X is morally wrong” – you can fill in the blank represented by the X.  The champion debater stands before the stage and, for the next hour, wows everyone with his command of the logical innuendoes, the implied thrusts of linguistic balm, and rides through the treacherous seas of persuasive intercourse with such convincing force that people in the audience (assuming that there is even an audience for such an event, as this is no longer in some Podunk county in Illinois where the Lincoln-Douglas debates were held throughout multiple congressional districts, and of course, that was, in those days, a form of “entertainment” that no longer attracts) sat with trance-like looks of agreement, somewhat like modern-day zombies who have been brainwashed.

At the end of his discourse, everyone in unison shouted out, “We agree!” – even before the teenager had a chance to make his point and argue his side.  But, fairness being the arbiter of everything in life for modernity, the teenager stood up and was given a chance.  At stake is a 10 million dollar prize.  The nervous young lad steps before the audience and states simply, “Because my daddy says so!” The audience considers, nods in agreement, and makes their decision as to who “won” the debate.

Query: Does it matter who makes the argument, or is it the substance of the words delineated that make for a valid persuasion?  Can an argument about moral behavior be made just as effectively by a “good” person as opposed to a convicted felon?  If a person wants to argue that “stealing is bad”, does it make a difference whether the person giving such a lecture is a policeman in uniform, or a prison inmate spending time for grand larceny?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering 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, always remember that there is a conceptual distinction with a real difference, between “having a medical condition” and “proving that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job”.  To “have a medical condition” is tantamount to the teenager who says that X is wrong “because my daddy says so”.  To prove one’s Federal Disability Retirement application before OPM is akin to the champion debater who must argue, prove and persuade.

Oh, and by the way – as to who “won” the debate in the hypothetical above – well, that is left to the imagination of the reader.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Indomitable Spirit of Pursuit

Preparation in pursuit of an endeavor should always embrace an uncompromising resolve to see it through to the end.  Such an attitude is quite different, and distinguishable, from mere stubbornness when the facts faced or the odds stacked clearly and convincingly manifest an inevitable defeat.  The former attitude prepares one to refuse succumbing to the innate fear and weakness inherently existent in us all; the latter, a failure of recognition beyond rational discourse and comprised of an obsessive impulse contrary to good form.

People often think that rationality encompasses merely the capacity to acknowledge a superior logical discourse, when it fact it must by necessity involve two further steps:  (A) the ability to recognize the weaker argument of the two, and (B) a willingness to accept that one’s own voice may not be the source of utterance of the stronger argument, and to accept and exchange the weaker for the stronger.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are preparing to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the disadvantage is of the weakened state, either physically or psychologically, that the Federal or Postal employee is in, throughout the process.

The calculus of the medical condition itself in factoring in one’s resolve, should never be underestimated.  The change of circumstances, the fall from grace in the eyes of one’s own Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, and the need to maintain health insurance, financial stability, etc. — all play to weaken the resolve of the Federal or Postal employee who pursues Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  And, of course, OPM also knows this, and plays upon the knowledge that they hold all of the cards in a metaphorical poker game, and by waiting, may outlast the stubborn and the strong alike.

It is because of this that the Federal and Postal employee who decides that applying for a Federal Disability Retirement annuity through OPM is the best course of action, must retain throughout an indomitable spirit of pursuit, in order to counter the Leviathan-like capacity for oppositional dominance possessed by the adversary.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Price of Admission

Private entities charge more; exclusive arenas tend to be out of reach; and it is, ultimately and as in all economic realities, determined by an admixture of supply (how many are allowed) and demand (how desirous is the goal of entrance and acceptance).  For every admittance, there is a price to pay.  Often, it is not merely the affirmative transfer of money or goods, but rather, the negative aspect of what one must “give up” in order to attain the end.  It often involves a comparative analysis, an economic evaluation of gain versus loss, and in the end, the emptiness of the latter being overtaken by the value of the former.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to awaken an awareness that one’s career may be coming to the twilight of that lengthy, successful run, it is often that “price of admission” which makes one hesitate.  For the Federal and Postal employee 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 is double-sided:  the price one “has been” paying to remain as a Federal or Postal employee, as opposed to the loss of employment status, or becoming an “ex-member” of that exclusive club.

Change always portends a trauma of sorts; the medical condition and the revelation of vulnerability, mortality and progressive debilitation was in and of itself crisis of identity; but when it becomes clear that the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability to perform all of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, and that further changes to one’s career and livelihood must by necessity occur, then the avalanche of reality’s namesake begins to dawn.

The price of admission for one’s health, ultimately, is priceless; and that is the reality which one must face when preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire