Federal Disability Retirement under FERS: Spectator Sports

Psychologists and commentators in general have had a field day (yes, the bad pun is intentional — but who can avoid it?) with analyzing and providing “expert” opinions on the matter, which essentially plays with (yes, yes, another bad pun) the following question: Why are people so enamored by watching others play a game?  What is it about the concept of spectator sports that draws such a crow?  What is it about being part of a “team” that results in people acting in such bizarre ways?

It is, of course, an easy transition to other areas of one’s life — from spectator sports to the political rally; of parades and cheering crows; of legions of a cheering populace gathered to welcome the Roman troops returning from battle; of D-Day and V-J Day; of the stadiums filled for the World Cup in Soccer to the excesses of the Super Bowl; of March Madness and the tradition of Friday Football (High Schools), Saturday Football (Colleges) and Sunday Pro football games; and what the Covid-19 Pandemic reflected when everyone was shut in, but with curtailed capacity to view such spectator sports.

What does it reveal about us?  Had the Romans, with their vast coliseums, already figured out the human psychology — of the need for spectator sports — in order to satisfy the blood-thirsty need of a restless populace?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are needing to filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, hiring a disability attorney who specializes in Federal Medical Retirement Law is often approached as one does a spectator sport: Who has the highest winning percentage?  What Law Firm will treat me as a “team member”?  And, the flip side is also true, concerning the perspective of the Agency: “How will my ‘team’ (the Agency) treat me?” “How will my team react?”

Whether fortunate or unfortunate, the psychology of spectator sports is how everyone views things, but for the Federal or Postal employee who is ready to contact a FERS Disability Lawyer to initiate the process of OPM Disability Retirement, understand that trying to get an Federal Disability Retirement is ultimately not a spectator sport; for, it is the reality of a life endeavor, and your full participation will be needed on the “field” of the early retirement process.

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 Retirement: Unique Problems

Every individual is beset with unique problems; for, it follows from the details of each circumstance, the particularity of each issue and the application of specific concerns which each individual faces, etc.

Medical conditions represent unique problems; and for Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical problem such that the medical conditions no longer allow for the unique compatibility between the medical issue and the essential elements required of one’s Federal or Postal job — such unique circumstances will require an individualization of a specific nature in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS.

By “unique”, however, does not mean “unfamiliar”.  An experienced attorney in FERS Disability Retirement Law who understands the complex issues surrounding a Federal Disability Retirement case can differentiate between irrelevant facts and issues, and the core issues which impact a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Contact a Federal Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin the process of streamlining the unique issues and circumstances relevant to your particular case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Anticipation

It is an exceptional inkling; a necessary premonition so helpful in multiple ways; an instinct based upon — what?  How do we anticipate?  What is it based upon?  Is it merely a characteristic which some have and others are at a disadvantage because of the lack thereof?

How is a tennis champion able to anticipate the moves of his or her opponent?  Or a football team, the plays next to be called (excepting those who have been found to cheat); a baseball team able to anticipate the pitcher’s next type of pitch (again, excepting those who have stolen the catcher’s signals given)?

Or, in a Federal Disability Retirement case, how does one anticipate the arguments which will be made by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and preemptively answer them with greater efficacy?

It all comes down to: Preparation.  The better tennis player watches countless hours of his or her opponent’s prior moves; the football and baseball teams study films of their opponents; the lawyer who wins against OPM takes the experience of all prior cases and preemptively argues the case on behalf of his client.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin the process of anticipation in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The Pathway of Choice

Pathways are peculiar entities; pre-Google Map times, they were a maze of forbidden routes, romanticized by a generation who were familiar with the television series, Route 66, and about hitchhiking, wrong turns, Robert Frost’s famous poem and Rand McNally road maps.

Now, of course, Google guides, directs, and (sometimes) allows for avoidance of unnecessary delays.  But is it the pathway of choice, and even more importantly, is the pathway chosen the best one for each one of us, the most advantageous for us, and the one which ultimately is in our best interests?  If the pathway that is chosen is simply so because all others are never known, or merely because that is the Robert-Frost-look-alike, when in fact it is delimited because of our lack of knowledge, is it really out of choice or of necessity?

Perhaps the career chosen is not turning out to be the realization of one’s dreams; or, as sometimes happens, an unfortunate set of circumstances has intervened — like a medical condition — and suddenly the pathway of choice that we thought would fulfill our hopes and dreams no longer seems possible; then what?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows us to perform all of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal positional duties, the pathway of choice for the immediate future may seem constricted:  Stay put and suffer; walk away with nothing; or, prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

That is the tripartite fork in the immediate road on the way to one’s pathway of choice; but then, there are other “forks in the road” beyond, such as being able to work at another job after one has been approved for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether in the private sector or in a state, county or municipal employment scenario.

Don’t be restricted to the immediacy of one’s pathway of choice, for there are many forks beyond, and the pathway of choice as dictated by Google maps only tells you which turn to make in the next quarter mile, and not about what may be chosen in future lives yet unforeseen.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The prerequisite of thought

What constitutes “thought” and fails to satisfy the allegation that one has not engaged in it?

Take the following example: A young man who is courting a young woman buys a bouquet of flowers on his way home, but stops by at her place just to say hello.  She — seeing the flowers — declares, “Oh, how thoughtful of you.”  He sheepishly smiles and nods his head, but in reality the flowers were to spruce up his own apartment.  He explains this to the young woman, and she turns a smile into its opposite — a frown — and reverses her opinion, telling the cad how “thoughtless” he is being.

In reality, he had done no such thing — he had, in fact, “thought” about it, only not in the sequence that the young woman had desired.  Yet, he is charged with being “thoughtless” — and one could argue that such a charge is applicable in that he should have “thought about it” before stopping by her place, and instead should have gone ahead and followed a route straight home.

Or, of another example: Say you are debating a point with another individual, or a group of individuals, and someone during the course of your monologue says, “It is clear that you haven’t thought about it.” What, precisely, does that allegation mean and imply?  Would it have made any difference if you had previously taken yourself into a corner, sat for an hour or two reflectively posed like the famous statue by Rodin’s “The Thinker”, chin upon knuckle in a reflective pose of self-absorption — then come back to engage in the discussion?

What if your contribution to the conversation included as great an expanse of idiocy as if you had not “thought about it” — but the mere fact that you had sat for a couple of hours, or perhaps a weeklong sojourn of contemplative solitude — does it make a difference?  Isn’t “thinking about it” often done in the course of give-and-take, during the conversation engaged, as opposed to being lost in one’s own mind?

Further, isn’t singularity and isolation of “thinking” often the wrong approach, inasmuch as you may be missing something, have inadequate information, illogical in the process because of selfish interests unrecognizable, and therefore the best kind of thinking often involves debate, countering opinions and other’s input, as opposed to the isolationism of “The Thinker”?

Would it make sense to ask a dozen or so physicists to “solve the mystery of the universe” by gathering them together, then making each sit in a corner and “think about it”, as opposed to engaging them in a “give-and-take” brainstorming session?  Isn’t much of thinking “done” by engagement with others, as opposed to a soliloquy of isolationism?  If so, then why is there too often a prerequisite of thought?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have “thought” about 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, the first and most important step in making the “right” decision may not be by engaging in an isolationism of “thinking about it”, but by consulting with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law.

There is no prerequisite of thought in picking up the telephone and having an initial, free consultation with an attorney to discuss the particulars of your case, and engaging in the thoughtful exercise of considering OPM Disability Retirement by actively participating in the productive modality of thinking.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Government Employees: The content

It is ultimately the content that matters, especially in a technical, administrative procedure where tone and context become secondary.  After all, we are addressing a “medical” issue – a cold, clinical subject when it comes to filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

What should be included?  How far back?  What is meant by the “essential” or “core” elements of a job?  Does the capacity and ability to arrive at work for the duration of completing assignments in and of itself constitute an “essential” element of the job?  What if the job can be performed, but one simply cannot drive to the job?  Must I address failed efforts by the agency to “accommodate” me, and does the term “accommodation” have a narrower legal meaning than the way it is loosely used by my agency?

These and multiple other questions go to the heart – the content – of the issues presented when preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Content is all important, and the audience to whom the Federal Disability Retirement application is intended is relevant to keep in mind.  If you are standing in line at a grocery store, or at a Post Office, and someone remarks to you, “You are obviously in pain.  Go ahead in front of me” – such kindness and consideration may prompt you to explain, in somewhat abbreviated form, the content of what your medical condition is.  However, if that same person who showed such consideration turned out to be a close family member, who either already knows about your condition or is otherwise intimately familiar with the circumstances and the history of your medical condition, your response may be somewhat different.

How much history of the medical condition needs to be related to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; what medical records need to be attached and accompany the narrative report that creates the “bridge” and “nexus” between the medical condition and the essential elements of the job duties – these all fall under the general aegis of “content”, and must be carefully considered in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Plans, purposes and pivoting positions

The first in the series indicates the human endeavor of imagination and creativity, unique sets of binary forecasts projecting into a beautification of one’s future; the second, the qualitative and substantive core which motivates and impels the preceding characteristic and transforms it from mere ethereal musings into a concretized formulation of action; and the final element of the tripartite aggregate represents the capacity and ability of a person to remain adaptable, malleable, ready to take into consideration new data and conform appropriately, such that the originating plan is never abandoned but merely evolved into a pragmatic reflection, yet driven by the underlying impetus based upon strength and character.

It is the last of the three which is often the most difficult in this society of rigidity and unforgiving iconoclasm.  Bureaucracy does that to people, as the Leviathan of administrative growth and conformity to identity of purpose leaves little room for imagination and creativity.  We like to fool ourselves by pointing to the vast number of books published, or to “new plays” being produced off-and-on-Broadway; or to the innovations attained and announced in the world of technology, medicine and legal precedent, then pat ourselves on the back with self-praise and delusional despair.  But reality confronts us otherwise in the daily encounters with ordinary people.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to perform all of the essential elements of one’s positional duties with the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, the direct conflict with the ways of repetition and customary machinations of administrative malfeasance come to the fore.

Agencies rarely, if ever, desire to accommodate; they do not see the value of retaining Federal employees who have served with dedication, honor and reliability for these many years; and, instead, are willing to forego the minimal alterations to workplace requirements and engage in a termination fight in order to retain its mindless inscrutability.  Plans are meant to be changed — and for the Federal or Postal worker, the entrance of a medical condition, whether physical, psychiatric, or a combination of both, should so alter the plans.

Purposes can be adaptable — and so they should, when the medical condition enters the equation.  And those pivoting positions first learned in playing the game of basketball?  They teach us the valuable lessons not only to elude the opposition, but in order to gain the advantage of a position of strength where weakness was once thought to prevail.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Noh & Other Masks

Every culture has some element of representative theatre of art, and Nogaku is the classical Japanese form which tells the narrative of human suffering, trials and challenges encompassing masks, elaborate costumes, and traditional music reflective of the times and periods of tragic and comic proportions throughout history.

Why are masks used?  What is it about the frozen caricature, that moment in time when a look, a grimace, a smile or an unconcealed filament of emotion that encapsulates human suffering, tragedy or a breeze of joy?  Masks frozen reveal but a singular moment — or so one assumes, until you look at it from a different angle, a changed light, or perhaps when one’s own emotions alter and bring to the stage the experiences and baggage accumulated throughout a lifetime.

Masks fascinate — look at the glee, fear and awe on a child’s face, and those memories frozen in time as the child claps, stares, puts the tiny involuntary hand to his or her mouth, as the play before unfolds, whether in life or on the stage.  We all wear masks; some to conceal, others to gloss over.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers suffering from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional duties, the daily mask in order to conceal the progressive deterioration of one’s health, is no different from the theatre of plays performed.

Only, for the Federal and Postal worker who must consider 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, the “play” never ends, as real life is ongoing; and the mask worn changes not in response to the altering angle of light, but rather, because of the unremitting articles of life which slowly chip away at the brave face of time, like the dust of age which fades the painted Noh mask, whether on stage or in the arena of daily living.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Jobs: Prerogatives

The exclusivity of a right or privilege can remain dormant until asserted; and assertion triggers and activates, and suddenly that which consisted merely of quietude and inertia, becomes the centrality of controversy, contention and adversarial encounter.  Much of life is like that; resembling the proverbial elephant in the sitting room, or the decaying clump of unidentified derivation of unseemly scents, people tend to avoid and take a wide berth while acting “as if” throughout the day, the week, a year, and in a lifetime.

In olden days of yore, the “prerogative” was retained by the King, the Crown and the Papacy to assert or not, depending often upon the whims of emotional and political turmoil.  The fact of inactivity or inertia with respect to the right or privilege did not result in the loss of it; rather, it merely meant that the non-use of power only magnified the unlimited potentiality for tyranny.  One doesn’t lose something merely because it isn’t used; unless, of course, you are a common man or woman without power or purpose.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have been “allowed” by one’s agency or the U.S. Postal Service to continue to remain in one’s position at the “prerogative” of the agency or the U.S. Postal Service, by being retained in some capacity of “light duty” or informal arrangement of “less-than-full-duty” status, the attitude and atmosphere can be likened to the Royal Family allowing and granting a limited dispensation at the mercy of the Crown, and always with humble subservience of gratitude and metaphorical acts of low-bowing.

While it is dangerous to be indebted to someone else for too much, the greater travail is to believe that one owes something of value when in fact no such indebtedness ever existed.

For Federal and 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 positional duties, the fact that the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service “says” that it is “accommodating” the Federal or Postal employee, does not necessarily make it so.

The prerogative to 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, always remains and is retained by the Federal or Postal employee, even throughout a circumstance and situation where the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service contends that the Federal or Postal employee is being “accommodated”.  For, the term itself is one of art, and “accommodation” — in order to be a legally viable accommodation — must meet certain standards and rise to a level of legal sufficiency.

The mere fact that the Federal agency on High says it is so, no longer applies; for, despite its claim to greater status of Royalty, the days of uncontested power through mere lineage no longer exists, except perhaps in the feeble minds of the commoner who treads the hallways of Federal agencies and U.S. Post Offices with fear, trembling, and humble subservience.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire