Disability Retirement for Federal and Postal Workers: “Why?”


The ability to question is perhaps the highest form of consciousness.  Without it, the next level of any narrative form would cease, and no prompting of a search for an answer will develop.

That is why effective trial work — from persuasive direct examinations to devastating cross-examinations, guided by pointedly-prepared questioning — requires thoughtfulness and contemplated direction.  Some questions, however, become avenues for paralysis.  They may, for a time, help to ease the troubles of one’s soul, but they are ultimately unanswerable ones which cannot be comprehended in the limited universe of one’s mind.

Thus, when a Federal or Postal employee who suffers from a medical condition asks the question,”Why?” — it is legitimate, but one which may not have an adequate answer.  One must instead progress to a more pragmatic question: What to do about it. Where to go from here.  The “why” may need to be left aside, for another time, during a more contemplative period of recuperation.

For Federal and Postal workers, time itself can be a critical factor, and in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, because the bureaucratic process itself is a long and complicated one, it may be of benefit to set aside some questions, and instead focus upon the pragmatic questions which set one upon a path of purposive direction.

The height of man’s consciousness may be the result of evolutionary factors, but the most fundamental of questions should begin with that primitive foundation of all: self-preservation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: How One Perceives a Case

How one views a case often determines the approach which is undertaken.  Thus, if the belief is that preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is merely a simple administrative process which requires the compilation of the medical documentation, answering some questions and filling out some forms, then such a belief will determine the extent of preparation of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

The other side of the perspective, however, is held by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  OPM views every Federal Disability Retirement application based upon a multitude of criteria:  legal sufficiency; consistency of statement-to-evidence; weight of medical documentation; analytical comparison to what the agency states; a review of the composite of forms, documents and statements made, etc.

Is OPM’s approach an adversarial one?  One often hears that such administrative and bureaucratic processes are “non-adversarial” in nature, but what exactly does that mean?  If the perspective of the Office of Personnel Management is to apply a legal criteria in order to determine the legal sufficiency of a Federal Disability Retirement application, doesn’t that make it into an adversarial process?

Euphemisms are invaluable tools in the utilization of language as a means of communication; but words ultimately must have a static meaning — at least for the duration of the sentence to be uttered.  That being the case, one must conclude that how one perceives a case should be based upon the meaning of language used in describing the case; and the meaning is quite clear in preparing, formulating, filing, and awaiting a decision of a Federal Disability Retirement application from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire