OPM Medical Retirement Lawyer: The Complexity of Unpredictability

Some view human behavioral unpredictability as a declaration of the underlying complexity; others would have it that, far from any such convoluted aspiration towards mystery and intricacy, a yawn and ensuing boredom more likely represents the determinism and simplicity of humans.

Which represents the true picture?  Perhaps youth and a naive lack of experience in encountering the universe of everyday conflict is what we discover in the spectrum of opinions; and cynicism abounds upon greater enmeshment and entanglement with the human condition.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the question often arises as to whom, when and the timing of divulging the intent to file.  As the saying goes, discretion is the greater part of valor; unless there is a compelling reason to do so, limiting the information where relevant; restricting the venue of information to the extent possible; and keeping mum until and unless necessary, should be the guiding principle.

Why?  Because, first and foremost, medical information (which is obviously the primary foundational basis of a Federal disability retirement application) is sensitive in nature, confidential in scope, and entails vast privacy concerns for all.  Further, one never knows how an agency and its representatives may react (thus the charge that human beings are complex in nature), but the predictability of big-mouths and lack of discretion (alas, the corollary charge of simplicity of humans) should restrain and constrain any urge to divulge earlier than necessary.

“Necessary” is the key word, and that applies to people, timing and context of dissemination of such confidential information.

For the Federal and Postal employee contemplating preparing, formulating and filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the general rule, always, should be to believe in both contradictory assertions:  Because human behavior is complex and unpredictable, be discreet in revealing information; and because human behavior is simplistic and unimaginative, similarly be discreet and restrained in providing sensitive information.

As one side of a coin is worth just as much as the other, it is best to feel the nature of two faces in a world replete with two-faces.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer: Unrehearsed Spontaneity

In the absence of a coherent plan, one is left with the ad hoc approach of a sometimes delicious unfolding of unrehearsed spontaneity.  Dinner conversations; an unplanned visit; a sudden windfall; an inheritance from a long-lost relative; these are all desirable circumstances to suddenly befall; but most things in life require some extent of planning, and to expect positive results in the same manner as a string of lucky draws, is to ask for failure in the face of unrealistic anticipatory happenstance.

Medical conditions fall into the category of unexpected events; how one responds to it, what steps are taken, and where one goes from the discovery of the information — these are determinable follow-ups.  We often confuse and bundle together causation with effects.

Hume’s bifurcation via use of billiard balls as an example, illustrates the point of recognizing the importance of identifying that “necessary connection” which is lacking when discussing the universe of inception and result.  Some things happen without rational basis or knowable justification; but where we have the capacity to engage an active hand in a matter, the consequences we perceive from our affirmative participation can be defined and comprehensive.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who find that a medical condition has impacted his or her ability and capacity to continue in the Federal or Postal job, it is important to recognize that unrehearsed spontaneity is fine for a time, but not for planning the course of one’s future.

Preparing, formulating and 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, requires the cogent and deliberative gathering of relevant medical documentation; the capacity to compile the compendium of proof in order to qualify; and the application of legal argumentation in combining medical information with legal significance, in order to persuasively submit an effective Federal Disability Retirement packet.

Approvals are not won by mere happenstance; luck in a Federal Disability Retirement application is not based upon a lottery ticket purchased, forgotten, and suddenly viewed for statistical improbabilities; rather, it is a focused approach upon a bureaucratic process where the coalescence of facts, law, and preponderance of the evidence are compiled with a deliberative approach.

Leave the delicious moment of unrehearsed spontaneity to a dance under a sudden cloudburst; to prepare an OPM Disability Retirement application of efficacy and success, a wider approach of planning is necessary.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement System: The Numbness of Inaction

Much of our lives are spent on waiting; waiting upon others to complete their portion of a task as a precondition of doing our part; waiting upon a pet to finish their “business”; waiting in line to purchase an item; waiting online for whatever ethereal micro-data transfer to occur in electronic language akin to bitcoin transactions; and waiting to get beyond puberty, across the threshold into manhood so that one’s folly of actions haven’t damaged too severely the potentiality of one’s existence; and, in the finality of life, upon death and the hereafter.

Thus is youth waiting upon folly to end; middle age, a remorseful reflection upon wasted days; and old age the suffering from the want of yore.  And, of course, there is the waiting hours for those with medical conditions — in doctor’s offices for the verdict of a future or lack thereof; and for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, often a meandering loss of direction, waiting upon one’s agency for…often not more than administrative actions and sanctions leading to a “performance improvement plan” (what is generally referred to by its acronym, the “PIP”), and to proposed removals and other sanctions.

Free advice:  Don’t ever wait upon an agency to do its part in any right manner; always act without regard for the agency’s expected answer.  Otherwise, the wait will simply result in a crisis of time.  For Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, waiting upon an agency for anything is but mere folly regurgitated from the days of one’s youth.

Sitting around bemoaning the lack of action by an agency, is tantamount to being a middle-aged crumple of impotence; and expecting that an agency will be patient during one’s days of trials is like being an old man in a nursing home waiting upon death.  If you haven’t figured it out by now, agencies and the U.S. Postal Service do what they want to do, when they decide they want to do it, whatever the “it” is.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is a duty requiring affirmative action by the Federal or Postal employee, where the onus is entirely upon the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker.

As waiting is merely a time of inaction, so the numbness of sitting around waiting upon others occurs as a result of atrophy of life; and the numbness of inaction will merely magnify in the loss of mobility for the future, where a Federal or Postal worker sits with an expectation of a future void, until such time as one is prompted into an awareness that it is action which leads to consequential substance, and not the inaction of inertia.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire