Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Calendar

It rules every day and moment of our lives; yet, we feel out of synch with it, like the rip tide which pulls against the direction you wish to swim towards.

Every now and again, we read about more primitive societies who once possessed a biological affinity to the world around; but within the concrete jungle — or jumble — of technology and civilization’s dominance by construction, we have lost any sense of that.

And so we look out through the window at the stars and the moon, however dimly and distant they appear, misted (or misled) and obscured by the noise and artificial lights surrounding, and allow our lives to be controlled by the calendar of activities: Of chores to be done; of work to be accomplished; of deadlines to be met.

But that the full moon makes wildlife still a bit “off”, whether we believe in such mythologies of antiquated misgivings; but we take no notice.  Whether the baying of a dog during a full moon, or of skittish horses in the wild; no, it is the calendar which obscures, dominates, overrides it all.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers suffering from a medical condition, preventing the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job — the most important notation on your calendar is the one for medical appointments and treatment modalities.  But you may have already exhausted your available leave and your agency won’t allow you to take LWOP anymore.

You probably need to file for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Put the notation in your calendar: Contact a disability attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and don’t let the moon lead you to howl in despair; after all, it’s the calendar which makes us do it.

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.

 

Permanent Disability Retirement from Federal Employment: Time for a Change

Often, the mind lags behind the body.  The body may have been indicating to you the need for some time; but “time” and “change” are conceptual paradigms which require thought — the mechanism of the mind which listens to the body.  Or, if one is beset with a psychiatric condition, what often happens is that one part of the brain becomes ill and cannot quite communicate to the other part of the brain which prompts the decision-making process.

Whatever the problem, there comes a time for a moment of realization — that it is time for a change.

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 position, the time for a change is now.

Contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement, and listen to your body — or the part of your mind which screams for that change — and make the first move in responding to the need: Time for a Change.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: What the Attorney Can Do

If attorneys were gods, they would work themselves out of business; but attorneys are not gods; therefore, there is much that an attorney can do.  Such a syllogism may be rather self-evident.  Attorneys are not gods; neither are they miracle workers.  Not every issue can be handled by, or resolved through, an attorney.

Sometimes, the lay person can do the work him/herself without an attorney.  At other times, the input of an attorney, however minimal, can be the difference between success or failure.

Here are some of the things a Federal Disability Attorney can do in a Federal Disability Retirement case: Focus and sharpen a case; cut out the irrelevancies; cite and apply the law; make the legal arguments which are current and applicable; streamline a case and make it clear and pointed; rebut an opponent’s argument by pointing out logical inconsistencies and mistaken applications of the law; provide a strategy and plan; give an objective account of one’s case.

There are many other aspects of any given case that a Federal Disability Retirement Attorney can be helpful with, but these generalities can provide you with a notion of what a good and effective attorney can do.

Contact an OPM Disability Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin the process of putting together an effective Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: Life Goes On

Americans make of politics the same as everything else we do: It becomes a passion with a responsiveness tantamount to life and death.  We do it in almost all else, as well, as in sports — if our team doesn’t win, it is as if the world has come to an end.

We do it in marriage — we put on a great show at tremendous expense to announce that it is an event which will last forever.  We do it in religion — where every denomination and every pokey-little church has a corner of truth in interpreting “the doctrine”.  We do it in Supreme Court nominations, who our Congressman or Senator will be, and in every other sector of life.  We act as if the world will come to an end — like Y2K, Climate Change and the Presidential Election.

But Life Goes On.

The “day after”, everyone else has to move on and make a living and deal with life, no matter who won, what occurred or which side prevailed.  And 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, dealing with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is still a reality which must be faced.

So, recognize your priorities in life and realize that whatever happens, you will still need to consult with an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement, because no matter what, life goes on.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement for FERS Employees: Presumption of Orderliness

It is a peculiar presumption; for, in most other contexts, we presume the very opposite.  Yet, for whatever psychological basis of need or desire, we presume that there is orderliness in the lives of everyone else despite the chaos in our own lives.

We hide well for appearance sake, and perhaps that is the key: Everyone else seems to live an orderly, planned, well-managed life, and so the appearance itself is what maintains the sanity of society’s apparent orderliness.  Yet, when we hear about the chaos erupting in another’s person life — of a break-up between couples; of a life ruined for this or that incident; or even of a sudden medical condition that traumatizes a family member — are we really surprised?

In public we maintain a passive face; despite internal turmoil and private lives of hellish circumstances, we do our best to put forth a calm demeanor.  That is the unspoken rule, is it not?  Once out the door, the “deal” is that we leave the chaos behind and act “as if”.  To that extent, we are all great actors on the stage of public discourse; we just don’t get paid like the megastars in Hollywood, but nevertheless take on the lead role of the greatest movie series ever made: Life.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition which prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the time to stop “covering up” and “acting as if” has likely come to a crisis point.  The chaos of trying to hide the medical condition and acting “as if” everything is fine has now come to a point where life and acting coalesce: You must acknowledge the reality of the medical condition and stop trying to hide it because, in the end, your health is of greater importance than the appearance of orderliness.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin the discussion of bringing back not only a presumption of orderliness, but a reality based upon an earned annuity of financial security.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Benefits: Sitting alone

Sitting alone can be dangerous.  Whether early in the morning or late at night, when one’s thoughts are the only neighbor within, and the soliloquy of voices have been shuttered into basement echoes where the drip-drip of a broken faucet reverberates amidst the endless thoughts of tumult and disaster.  The disconnect between reality and thought, betwixt action and mind, become exponentially exaggerated when sitting alone.

Rarely do tectonic shifts in the objective world result in major disasters where entire civilizations crumble and become destroyed; for, each and every day, subterranean movements occur imperceptibly without notice of bystanders who walk from cafe to office; but within the shifts which occur while sitting alone, the tumults of a mind fearful of one’s future become endless nightmares that cannot be contained.

The subtlety of fear unrecognized; the voice within that panders to irrationality; or of the dread that overwhelms — it can all come about through sitting alone.  The cacophony of voices around; the television blaring to drown out silence; friends and acquaintances invited in order to keep out the squeezing quietude of being alone: these are temporary ways of blunting the danger of sitting alone.

It is like having a medical condition and trying desperately to ignore it; at some point, we are all alone in the world, just as the womb that once protected within a catacomb of warmth and security became lost upon the expelling into the cold and heartless universe, and so we remain sitting alone with fear and loathing for a future yet undecided.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are sitting alone, unsure of what do to because a medical condition has begun to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it is time to consult with an attorney and begin the process of initiating an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and to stop avoiding the prospect of sitting alone by becoming lost in the day-to-day struggle of endless points of procrastination.

For, sitting alone is the pathway to realizing the disasters that loom within one’s thinking; it is a consultation with an experienced OPM Disability Retirement attorney that will open upon the doors for a future yet untold.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Answering the question

What constitutes “answering the question”, and more importantly, how does one determine when its opposite occurs — NOT answering the question?  Does the former occur if the questioner fails to follow up, and does the latter become an issue if the person asking responds with, “That doesn’t answer my question,” or some such similar declarative assertion?

Take the following hypothetical:  Person A asks Person B, “So, where do you come from?”  Person B answers, “The skies of Normandy were grey on that June day in 1944.”  Now, Person A could have various responses to such a statement, as in:  1.  “No, no, I asked where you came from.” 2. “Are you telling me that you come from Normandy, France?”  3.  “That doesn’t answer my question.”  4. Or, silence, with no follow-up.

Person B, of course, could similarly respond in variegated ways, as in:  A.  “I just told you.”  B.  “Yes” or “No” (in response to the follow-up question, “Are you telling me that you come from Normandy, France?”).  C.  Silence, or “Yes it does.”  D.  Nothing further.

It may be that Person B simply has a poetic bent, and from his perspective, the mundane query was answered in a metaphorical, literary manner.  More to the point, however:  Who determines if a question has been answered (leaving aside the further query of whether the answer itself has “sufficiently” or “fully” been responsive to the question) — the one who asks, or the one who answers?

In a normal conversation, of course, the issue rarely comes about; in an argument where one or the other side, or both, are trying to get answers and defeat the other side, the heat of the moment may determine the answer to the question; and the penultimate paradigm of the question, “Who determines whether the question has been answered?” occurs in the highest form during a deposition or cross-examination in the legal arena.

Observing what occurs during a court proceeding is an interesting experience of human behavior; of the back-and-forth between counsels and the witnesses being deposed or examined, as in:  “You didn’t answer the question.”  “Yes, I did.”  “I asked you…”.  “Asked and answered.”  “Objection, the question has already been asked and answered.”  And on and on until a singular point is pursued to an exhaustive level ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

Is the issue of what constitutes an answered question somewhat akin to the question or “original intent” — i.e., that just like an author’s original intent as to the meaning of a written document is what should rule, similarly, the person who asks the question has the sole power to determine whether or not the question asked has been answered, and moreover, adequately and sufficiently answered?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are beginning the process of 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, these questions concerning the “answering of questions” will and should come to the forefront when confronted with the questions asked on SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability.

Inasmuch as the U.S. Office of Personnel Management has promulgated the questions in a carefully-crafted manner, there are some inherent pitfalls and dangers in what constitutes an adequate response, a sufficient answer and the complete delineation that rises to the level of a satisfactory statement.

SF 3112A is replete with unanswered questions within the very substance of each question, and the answers you provide are best guided by an attorney who has had the experience of legal encounters previously, and who specializes in the Law of Federal Disability Retirement.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Attorney for Federal Disability Retirement Claims: The concise sentence

What is the difference between being concise and performing with precision?  The former is often applied in the universe of words and communication; the latter, in areas where quantitative measuring tools can be determined, such as in science or in mathematical sectors.

We say of a person who speaks voluminously but with little substance that he or she represents the antonym of conciseness; and so a comparison is often made between volume spoken or written and concepts or thoughts conveyed.  Of Literature, most would agree that Hemingway is the representative paradigm of conciseness, whereas Joyce and Faulkner reflect the very opposite, though all three are considered classic and great authors.

Do we excuse such authors as Joyce and Faulkner because, in literature, we tend to focus upon the stylistic brilliance of their writings as opposed to the “meaning” that captures the undercurrent of their works?  In other words, although they may give us “too many” words and thus are, by definition, lacking of conciseness, we nevertheless overlook such imprecision precisely because we do not attribute “amount” as the necessary and sufficient cause of determining the worth of good authorship.

Hemingway used to say that, in writing, he had already formulated each sentence before setting it upon paper, whether in handwriting (a lost art) or at the typewriter (a manual, when those contraptions existed and where the clack-clack of metal keys pounded deep into the twilight of a writer’s life).

Why do we applaud and celebrate the concise sentence?  Does it make a difference whether or not a sentence, say, with 7 words communicates a thought as opposed to a paragraph with a thousand words that conveys the identical conceptual construct?

Take the following 2 examples: 1. Lessening of debt equals wealth. Or, 2: If you have less to owe to others, then it is the same as savings; or, as Benjamin Franklin used to say, a penny saved is a penny earned, and the reality of it all is that we have more to spend and retain wealth, not so much because you have more money, but you have more because less is spent on paying other people your hard-earned dollars.

Now, both sentences convey essentially the same meaning.  The first one, however, is comprised of 5 words. The second one took…many words to communicate the same thought.  Does it matter whether a concise sentence is used, as opposed to one that is not, if the same two convey identically reflective thoughts?

It might make a difference, because of one factor that has not been discussed: Being concise often possesses the added feature of being precise, and precision is important in the accuracy of conveying thought.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are thinking about preparing, formulating and filing 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, there is a dual-key component to preparing the SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability: Be concise, but do not forego length for completeness.

In other words, being concise in order to convey the proper information is important; but, at the same time, do not sacrifice wordiness just because of the limited “boxes” that are provided on SF 3112A.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Postal & Federal Employee Attorney

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: How words matter

They do, don’t they?  Otherwise, how else to explain the endless plethora in the course of a single day, heard from every corner and source imaginable: The radio; the television; DVD; streaming; other electronic mediums; bystanders; on the telephone; written forms in email, texts, Facebook postings; everywhere, the insular words of a private-public conversation — public because much of it is accessible to everyone, except for those whispered soft nothings in the privacy of bedrooms and lips upon ears, but throughout acted upon “as if” each exchange of communication is between the sender and receiver, the declarative and the reply, the conversationalist and the lecturer; and so the infinite stream of words flow back and forth like the ebb of tides that have washed the shores of this earth from the beginning of time, or so it seems.

But what if actions never follow upon words; do they still matter?  When a person condemns another and shouts out, “He’s just full of it!” — what exactly do we mean?  A person makes a promise; words are spoken; perhaps even a “contract” is written up and entered into.  But then, nothing happens.  No actions are taken; a lawsuit is filed, and more words are entered into the database of the “justice system”; a trial is held, and more words spoken, this time in front of a judge.

At what point did the words originally spoken or written fail to matter, and when did they then again matter?  What is meant by “matter” — is it only in conjunction with actions taken, or do the words themselves, hanging in the suspended universe of the ethereal, have some impact despite no one taking any notice of it?  Is a “vow” or a “promise” something more than mere words?  If a person makes a promise and marries, takes the traditional vows of fidelity and honor, do the words matter, or only by the actions that follow, or both?  And what of the person who says nothing — in past ages, there were men (and women) who had a reputation of “being a man (or woman) of few words” — but always follows through on his or her commitments?  Do the words not spoken matter?

Yes, yes — the linguistic philosopher will observe that the very lack of words was telling all the same, but we are not talking about that — not of silence, but of words spoken, and not of those unspoken.  Thus do we say of the person who keeps his promise — “He is a man (or woman) of his/her word”. But what if he/she breaks every promise spoken, and says upon getting caught, “But I never meant a word of it anyway”?  Does that make a difference?  Or of the boring lecturer who no one listens to, but then when a fire breaks out and a small child yells, “Fire” and everyone listens and exits safely — how did the action following upon the words spoken matter?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition has come to a point where preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, what must always be kept in mind is that the entire administrative process of the bureaucratic methodology of “Federal Disability Retirement” is based entirely upon “words” — of meeting the legal criteria with words; of describing the nexus between the medical condition and one’s positional duties with words; of making persuasive legal arguments with words.

Words matter by being effective, where actions follow upon the singularly unique encounter between the insular world of subjective words and the objective reality of “others” listening, taking it in, then acting upon them — as in granting an approval for a Federal Disability Retirement application upon a submission of a bunch of effective words that comprise a successful Federal Disability Retirement compilation.  That’s when words matter, and the manner in which words are put together.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement: The Categorical Imperative

It is, of course, the foundation of Kant’s moral philosophy; of the unconditional call to act in a certain way, accepted and mandated precisely because there is no room for question.  But that life were so easy; automatons would simply act in mechanistic ways, driven by moral certitude; free will could be determined by the comforting thought that universal codes of conduct shall always confine and direct.  And bureaucracies would always make decisions within a framework of computational algorithms.

But Federal Disability Retirement is not a matter of a diagnosis; unlike Social Security Disability, which does contain a semblance of categorical imperatives when it comes to certain medical conditions, the preponderance of the proof needed in becoming eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is threefold: First, the minimum number of years under FERS (18 months of creditable Federal Service) or CSRS (5 years, which is presumably already met by everyone in that retirement system); Second, a medical condition which came into existence during the time of Federal Service (with some arguable exceptions within one (1) year of being separated from Federal Service); and Third, a nexus of relevant impact between one’s medical condition and the essential elements of one’s positional duties one performs for the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service.

It is this third step in the process which effectively compels one to step outside of the identification of Federal Disability Retirement laws as containing an element of the categorical imperative; for, in the end, it is not simply an evaluation of “which category” one falls into, but rather, how significant and persuasive is the bridge built upon between the two primary land masses:  one’s medical condition (land mass #1) and the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job (land mass #2).

That metaphorical “bridge” must be constructed with care, clarity, and concrete argumentation of persuasive force in order to withstand the inspecting scrutiny of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Look upon it as if OPM is walking through the construction site with a hard hat, pen in hand and taking notes furiously in attempting to discover deficiencies in the qualification standards imposed.  Jumping up and down and screaming at the inspector that the bridge fits into a pre-defined category will not suffice; instead, the categorical imperative must be argued for by pointing to the medical evidence, the law, and the connective tissues which form the effective and persuasive confluence of all of the elements which comprise the ultimate imperative of life:  that of a methodology of argumentation that one is “right”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire