Tag Archives: medical retirement from federal government employment

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Persuasion

Persuasion is a funny animal; when it is effective, success is determined by the reversal of an opponent’s viewpoint, but if it is ineffective, mere silence ensues, and unless prompted by subsequent queries, one never knows how close one came to persuading another and what further evidence or argumentation may have pushed the other side over the edge.

Then, of course, there is always the question of whether the opposing party is open to persuasion or not, and what are the conditions within which it may occur.  The danger lies especially when an organization or bureaucracy has become so powerful or autocratic that it need not ever be persuaded because there are no consequences to being left unpersuaded.

The presence of outside safeguards is often necessary for persuasion to have its salutary effect, as a more obscure sense of “fair play” is often not enough to make a difference.  All of this, of course, doesn’t even touch upon the substantive content of what constitutes a persuasive argument, as context is often just as important as content (anyone who has been married will immediately understand the truth of this statement).

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have submitted a FERS Medical Retirement claim with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (also known for its acronym “OPM”) and have received an initial denial and must now respond to the denial at the Reconsideration Stage of the Process, “persuasiveness” becomes the battle cry in preparing the proper response.

OPM has all the time in the world in preparing its denial and needs little basis in its persuasive content.  They merely need to have some minimal basis of reasons to issue a denial.  On the other hand, the denied Federal or Postal applicant has (A) a very short timeframe in responding and (B) must advance a heavy burden of proof in order to overcome the denial, despite the often scatter-brained content of an OPM Denial.

Furthermore, in preparing a reconsideration Response, one should always keep in mind that the targeted audience is not just OPM, but the next stage in the event that OPM remains unpersuaded — that of the Admin Judge at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).  That is why any response to an OPM Initial Denial should include a recitation of the relevant case laws discussing why your particular case meets the legal criteria for an approval.

As with spousal arguments and discussions around the Holiday dinner table, context matters as much as context when trying to persuade the other side.  And also in preparing a persuasive response, you may want to consider consulting with a Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer specializing exclusively in FERS Medical Retirement Law.

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: Different Approaches

There is a difference between the ‘How’ and ‘Why’ of things — “How something is done” is quite different from “Why something is done.”

One can argue that the ‘Why’ of something should logically precede the ‘How’, for the meaningfulness attached will motivate as to the mechanical doing of it; whereas, others will propose that one should simply follow Nike’s oft-repeated logo — “Just do it” — and in the act of doing it, the meaningfulness of the activity will naturally follow and be discovered.

Ultimately, they represent different approaches, and may even be characterized by different personalities.  The one who simply charges forward without purpose or meaning may be superficially identified as a ‘pragmatist’ of sorts, while the one who first ponders the “Why” of everything may require a ‘spiritual’ source in everything before proceeding.

In the end, however, the underlying source of everything returns us to that what Viktor Frankl identified as the central human motivational force — the paradoxical search for a life’s meaning.  The importance of the ‘Why’ cannot be ignored; and as science can only point to the ‘How’ of anything, the emptiness of an unanswered ‘Why’ will often paralyze us.

Life is difficult as it is, with calamities and unexpected twists and turns along the way, and the fragile state of our health can be devastating without having an answer as to the ‘Why’ of everything.

For FERS Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service workers who suffer from an chronic injury or other condition and are forced to make a major decision moving forward, preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management may be one of the biggest fights of your life, and while a FERS medical attorney may not be able to answer the more important question as to the ‘Why’ of what has occurred, it is the more pragmatic ‘How’ which may be needed, for the time being.

Sometimes, the different approaches require a priority of answers in a sequence less than optimally answered, and in the case of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under the FERS system with OPM, it is the question of ‘How’ which must take precedence.

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 Medical Retirement: The Proper Perspective

You can gather all of the available facts, and yet still make the wrong decision because you fail to have the proper perspective.  To have the right perspective, you must assess and evaluate the facts as presented and arrive at the best judgment based upon a proper perspective.  The “proper perspective”, moreover, is often based upon a lifetime of habits formed in how one engages the facts amassed.

Do you allow for emotional prejudices to cloud your judgment, or have you cultivated a habit of dispassionate review?  Are you able to set aside the overwhelming sense of panic which can lead to a reactionary course of response, or can you set the issue aside and come back to it with a reserved approach of greater objectivity?

In most cases encompassing a variety of facts, a requirement of interpretive analysis must occur, and that process of arriving at the best course of action in determining the comparative and superlative degrees of a judgment does not necessarily mean that there is a singular “best” course, for reasonable people may differ on that.

And, of course, that is the proverbial “rub” of the issue — that the proper perspective arrived at the time may not lead to the best action to be taken, but merely that, given a set of facts analyzed at a given time and place, it is the “proper” one for the moment.  Other facts and circumstances may come into play if left to ponder, but because an imminent decision must be made, it is often enough to rely upon one’s best judgment in moving forward.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a chronic illness or injury such that an application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under the FERS system must be considered, arriving at the proper perspective will often be clouded by the medical condition itself.  As such, it is important to have the assistance of a lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law in order to provide the proper perspective in fighting against OPM for your rights.

The perspective of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is always that no Federal or Postal employee qualifies for Federal Disability Retirement, and will often deny a case by making it appear that you had no chance for success, to begin with.  However, that approach is not the right or proper perspective, and the way to counter OPM and arrive at the proper perspective is to apply the law.

Contact a Federal Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and respond with the proper perspective.

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: Just the Right Word

It is a terrifying thought that major events — some of which can lead to calamitous results — can turn on a word.  Diplomacy depends upon it, as well as marital harmony and a host of other circumstances.

Words possess the power of persuasion, and their salutary impact is seen by the consequences which follow.   One sees It in the faces of diplomats following lengthy discussions behind closed doors — whether certain words have really averted a crisis or have merely prolonged an inevitable consummation of intentions otherwise provoked.

Did “just the right words” avoid the breakup of a marriage, where the expectant looks of a child’s hope depended upon the soothing effects softly diminishing tempers’ destructive costs? It is the intemperate reaction in the heat of the moment which compels remorse of conscience and the recognition of the power of words.

For Federal Gov. employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from an injury or illness such that preparing, formulating, and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS becomes a necessity — or, if already filed and a Denial from OPM has already been rendered and a Reconsideration response is required — understanding that the entire administrative process is a “paper presentation” to OPM and is therefore dependent upon “just the right word” or, more accurately, multiple and voluminous words — is a daunting thought.

And furthermore, the words chosen must necessarily involve various areas of specialized disciplines — not the least of which (obviously) should include conceptual constructs of legal cases previously decided.

As such, in filing an application to OPM or in responding to an OPM denial and needing to file a responsive Reconsideration legal memorandum, it may be necessary to consult with a FERS Medical Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to help in choosing “just the right word.”

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.

 

FERS Medical Retirement Claims: Things We Didn’t Ask For

Perhaps the list is long; or, somewhat shorter than expected.  If it is a long list, one must question whether or not you actually didn’t ask for the items on the list.  If it is comfortably short, then it may reflect a greater control of one’s life.

Some things which the list may include: Financial problems; difficulties at work; a dog, a cat or some other stray animal having made it to your home; unruly kids; unappreciative kids; kids who never grow up.  Marriage often adds to the list — not because you don’t love your husband or wife, but because marriage is often an involvement of complex compromises where not everything is agreed to.

Can a shorter list reflect a greater capacity to control one’s life?  Perhaps — but the one column you cannot control is: A disabling medical condition.

That’s one of the things we didn’t “ask” for, although living a certain type of lifestyle may implicitly be interpreted as having “asked” for it, like: Jumping out of airplanes while being in the military (with later consequences of degenerative arthritis in the knees, for example); living in an unregulated state where upriver or downwind is a chemical pant spewing out dubious toxins which rain onto your lawn, forever killing anything and making those tomatoes a strange grey pallor, as in the state of Texas and perhaps some others; or of excessive use of drugs and alcohol in self-medicating for stressful issues, etc.

But, for the most part, a medical condition is one of those on “The List” which we didn’t ask for.

For Federal Gov. employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition — whether you asked for it or not — the prospect of preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS may well be necessitated by one of those things you didn’t ask for.

When a medical condition prevents you from performing one or more of the essential elements of your job, it is time to ask for something which you need — a Federal Disability Retirement Annuity — because of that which you didn’t ask for — a medical condition.

Hopefully, your application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will fall into another known category: Of Ask, and You Shall be Granted: An approval, from OPM.  Contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Medical Retirement Law and begin the process of asking for a benefit which is your right under Federal Law.

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 Law: The Comfort of Static

Comfort relies upon the known.  It is change which is most often uncomfortable.  The known chair or sofa where one reclines upon day after day; the familiarity of one’s home; the dog which greets with joy; the spouse who gives a hug; the workplace where one has spent one’s career — these are the static experiences of everyday life, and which brings comfort through stability and consistency.

Change — of moving; of changing careers; children leaving the home; the family dog no longer in good health; financial changes; old friends suddenly appearing in the obituary; these, and so much more, add to the stresses of one’s life, precisely because the comfort of static is suddenly lost.

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 comfort of static is lost as a result of the medical condition, the need to continue working, the loss of one’s health and the potential loss of one’s career.

Contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of transitioning to a “new” comfort of static — of being an annuitant upon an approval of a Federal Disability Retirement application from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 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.

 

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 Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Law: Societal Perfection

Anselm’s Ontological argument for the existence of God is dependent upon a crucial conceptual construct which, if and only if accepted, works.

It is the concept of “perfection”.  For, if existence — or, “to be” — constitutes the satisfying minor premise of the definition contained in the major premise, “That than which nothing greater can be conceived of”, then the question is: Do we necessarily have to agree with the societal construct of what “greater” means or, similarly of what “perfection” must entail?

Most ontological arguments must include some acceptance of what “perfection” entails — of the query involving, “How can an imperfect being possess a concept of perfection unless that perfection exists?”

But when it comes down to the details of what we mean by the term “perfection”, we find ourselves in squabbles of circular argumentation.  Societal constructs of perfection — or, of even lesser norms, like what is a “good” citizen, a dedicated worker, a loyal individual, etc. — often gets us into trouble, especially when such a definition becomes the basis for a self-harming viewpoint.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, continuing to work despite harming your own health is often insisted upon because of our distorted view of societal perfection.  We hold onto the societal construct of what it must mean to be a dedicated and loyal employee — i.e., the societal definition of perfection — until we die of exhaustion in trying.

FERS Disability Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is a counter to that — it is a recognition that you should not have to work in a job which is harming your health.

If you are no longer able to perform all of the essential elements of your position with the Federal Agency or the Postal Service, contact a disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement benefits and begin the process of defying the false construct of societal perfection.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Lawyer specializing exclusively in FERS Disability Retirement Law

 

Postal & Federal Employee Disability Retirement: OPM’s Selective Exclusion

The danger of attempting to present a specific viewpoint is that one almost always engages in selective exclusions — sometimes inadvertently; most times, deliberately.

Selective exclusion involves a 2-faced lie: A. You selectively choose to include only those statements, quotations, references, etc., which support your viewpoint and (B) concurrently and in a parallel manner, you exclude those statements which might support or otherwise strength the opposing viewpoint.  A third — often unspoken — component implies the following: Truth is not the guide; rather, winning an argument is what prevails.

Now, if a person, entity, organization or agency is supposed to be “objective” about a matter, such deliberative intent to proceed in a biased manner makes it all the more poignantly unacceptable.  Yet, that is exactly what the U.S. Office of Personnel Management does when denying a Federal Disability Retirement case — of engaging in selective exclusion in justifying its position of denying a case.

How to rebut and answer such an approach?  By including all that was excluded, and arguing the law — which, by the way, OPM also selectively excludes.

Contact an experienced lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin the process of answering the selective exclusion engaged in by OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer
Postal & Federal Employee Retirement Attorney