OPM Disability Retirement: Point-by-Point Refutation

Must every point made by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management be refuted point-by-point”?

Some points, of course, are rather irrelevant and harmless; others, perhaps disingenuous, at best, and poorly argued, at worst.  Still others are blatantly untrue (i.e., an euphemism for “a lie”), while the remaining are often taken out of context or singularly and deliberately isolated without considering the context of the actual meaning of the statement made.  Not every point needs a refutation.

Furthermore, what is the basis of the refutation? Is it merely your word, your opinion, etc., as opposed to the reviewing “medical specialist” at OPM — or, do you have refuting facts backed by the law in rebutting the untrue or “out-of-context” statement or allegation?

The point is, not every point needs to be refuted, but in making such an important determination, it is a good idea to consult with an experienced attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest the pointless point made by OPM becomes a greater point of contention that needs to be pointed out now in order to become beside the point later on in point of fact.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Worker Disability Retirement: Diversions

Watching sports is a diversion; reading, writing (no, for most of us, engaging in arithmetic is not a diversion, or at least not a pleasant one); taking a drive, engaging in some artistic endeavor like painting, woodcraft, batiking (or the more simple form of tie-dying that we all did as children); they all divert our attention away from life’s difficulties, challenges and general unpleasantries diffusely appropriated by mere happenstance of “living”.

Is it the diversion that makes the rest of it all worthwhile, or is it the daily grind which makes it worthwhile such that we can engage in those moments of diversions which takes us out of the monotony of repetitive consistency?  Do we need diversions?  Did everyone, all the time, throughout history, forever and a day always engage in diversionary activities?  Or, was there a time in the pure state of nature where survival was always at a cost of constant vigilance, and where diversions were considered as potentially dangerous activities leading to death?

Fortunately, modernity has engendered an unspoken truce — where busy-ness prevails for 5 days of the week, with the sixth being set aside for chores and the seventh (isn’t that what God ordained?) as a day of rest, or for diversions diversely dignified in dapper dalliances of discursive delightfulness (sorry for the alliteration, but it cannot be resisted unless relatively reorganized for really rotten reasons).  Excuse the diversion of amusing myself.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition itself becomes the primary diversion, it is likely time to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Diversions are ultimately meant for relaxation; medical conditions are “anything but” that.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law, lest the diversions that were meant to help us escape from the harshness of the work-a-day world becomes instead another reality of debilitating consequences.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: The Uncommon Step

“Thinking” is an activity which is presumed to be common within our species, but uncommon among others.  Procreation and the mechanical aspects involved are considered “common” for all species, yet in each instance is generally considered to be unique and uncommon, which is perhaps why we seek privacy when engaging in such acts.

Similarly, other acts which are common enough — of using the bathroom, taking a bath, hugging a dog, brushing one’s teeth — all common enough, and yet somehow we prefer a semblance of cloaked seclusion instead of the open display like holiday window dressings to attract customers.  Does shame play a part in modernity, anymore?

Where movies once refused to reveal to the public the uncommon proclivities of everyday lives, they now saturate and justify the prurient as mere fetishes more common than acknowledged.  Is that why shame is no longer a characteristic of culture’s understudy?  Is the human blush extinct because the common that once was subsumed within the privacy of daily lives has become so uncommonly common such that we no longer need the privacy of cloaked seclusion in order to feel such common tinges of regret?  And what about that uncommon step of admitting to one’s self that the human condition requires something beyond the common course of action?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows for continuation in one’s Federal or Postal job, taking the uncommon step of preparing and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is often likened to an admission that one’s Federal or Postal career is over.

Perhaps there is even a sense of “shame” or “remorse” — of how things might have been or wishful thoughts of regret.  Never let the uncommon step stop you from doing what is necessary; for, in the end, foolishness is the refusal to take the uncommon step when commonsense dictates that the uncommon step is the path towards a more common existence.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Early FERS Medical Retirement: Inside Life & Outside Appearance

Each of us lives an insular life.  It is that “private” side of us which remains so at our option.

How much of it is allowed into the public arena, and to whom we may share with, those are dependent upon multiple factors — of desiring to; of releasing information about ourselves that may allow for one to become “vulnerable”; of secretive lies; of shameful pasts; of thoughts that may be considered imprudent or childish; of foolish past exploits that may embarrass; of actions committed that were long forgotten by everyone but the self; and many more besides.

Then, of course, there is the “Outside appearance” — the person who is a compendium and pieced-together puzzle.  That “person” is comprised of many facets: By those who “know” you at the office, but perhaps in a restricted, limited way; by neighbors and acquaintances; by closer family members; by people who may have only come in contact by telephone or the internet, etc.

How much of the Inside life and the Outside appearance overlap may be best illustrated by a Venn diagram — or by a multitude of concentric circles, depending upon who is asked about a particular person.  Some scrupulously guard the inside life; others, like an open book left unguarded and unmarked, allow for the two parallel streams to mix and mingle without thoughts of restricting access.

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 concept of the “Inside life” and the “Outside appearance” is important to consider when entertaining the idea of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

For, while the Federal or Postal employee may be suffering from a medical condition, how much of that “Inside life” has impacted the “Outside appearance” — i.e., the medical condition’s impact upon one’s performance, conduct or attendance — will be questioned by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in determining the merits of the case.

It is, in a FERS Disability Retirement case, the “Outside appearance” that will be determinative, so that no matter the extent of pain or anguish experienced by the “Inside Life”, it is the “Outside appearance” which will be the facet of evaluative validity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire