FERS Medical Retirement from OPM: Fiction and Falsity

Are the two the same?  Or, is it the awareness which bifurcates the two into a conscious difference?

Fiction is one thing, falsity, quite another.  When fiction is put forth as fact, then it is falsity by another name; but falsity is what it is from the very beginning; it does not transform like Kafka’s Metamorphosis because the intent behind the falsity was to deceive, to begin with.  Movies; novels; television shows — they all give us the fiction of entertainment; but how we embrace them and live our lives within the fiction of our own lives, blurs the distinction between Fiction and Falsity.

It is, perhaps, an insidious, incremental falsity which begins to invade our daily lives.  We watch such action films — of the Bourne Sagas, or the 007 series & Mission Impossible movies, and we begin to perceive the world as somehow inclusively integrating such fiction; perhaps in distant beliefs that our government reflects some partial psychosis of such representations.  And when we read or hear of governmental misdeeds, we harken back and say to ourselves: See?

What happened in those fictional movies actually happens, even though falsity would — or should — protect us from such absurdities.  But read a short story like Ferdinand von Shirach’s tale entitled, “Self-Defense”.  It is fiction, but clearly based upon his experience as a top Criminal Defense Lawyer in Berlin.  Is it “fiction”?  Yes, at least officially.  Is it Falsity?  Just as clearly — not.

It is beyond fiction or falsity, because it is real and true.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from continuing in your Federal or Postal job, it is always important to distinguish between Fiction, Falsity and the reality of your situation.

As the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is clearly an agency which is ready to pounce upon any indicia of fictional falsity, you may want to contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law, to make sure that your representation of reality doesn’t cross the line into Fiction or Falsity.

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 Employee Disability Retirement: Americana

It is what makes up the character of a nation — of our traditions; our literature; our legal system; what makes us — Us.  Some might argue that we have no such identity — that as a land of immigrants, a mishmash of other cultures; a haberdashery of otherwise discarded human detritus; the last refuse of all scoundrels, not quite as bad as that “other” castaway of the British Empire — you know, that huge penal colony where the island of last resort was purposed to get rid of the undesirables:  i.e. Australia.

Americana is the quilt of discarded nations, the amalgamation of half-breeds and mixed-breeds; the nation where losers in other countries chose because they couldn’t make a proper living in their home nations.  That’s why we always have a big heart for the story of lost causes; because that is the only cause really worth fighting for.

Americana is the uniqueness of the illegitimate country created from a cauldron of past misgivings — of Slavery’s dark past which became the foundation for a compromised Constitution; of protected and excessive freedoms too liberal and tempting; of the genocidal treatment of an indigenous population; of excesses — always, of excesses.

Americana has always been that patchwork quilt of bright colors and beacons of wealth, and whether you thoroughly and blindly love the character espoused by the term itself, it nevertheless represents a dominating nation of unending possibilities.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have worked for the government of this amalgamation called, “Americana”, but have suffered from the misfortune of deteriorating health, it may be time to consider another aspect of Americana — a generous benefit known as FERS Disability Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Contact a Federal Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement benefits, and let not the excesses of American prevent you from maintaining a hope for a brighter tomorrow.

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.

 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Disability Retirement: Leaving Chunks Out

Sometimes, if done carefully, the abbreviated story “works” better — if the punch line makes sense despite leaving the chunks out.

For many years, I had been under the impression that I had read the full text of a major novel of stupendous length (you can guess which one it is — yes, of the Russian sort).  I later realized that it was an “abridged” version.  When I then read the unabridged version, my conclusions were: the editors of the abridged edition did a better job; the chunks left out did not add to the story, and should likely have been edited out to begin with, leaving a shorter abridged edition without identifying it as an abridged edition.  And finally: The Russian author was clearly too impressed with his own verbosity.

“Leaving chunks out” is often done in other contexts, as well — as in, responding to a spouse’s question, “What took you so long to come home?” — you leave out the fact that you had stopped off at a local bar and sat and drank for a couple hours.  Of course, the next obvious question in that context is: “How come you smell of alcohol”?

Leaving chunks out when the motive and intent is underlined by a nefarious paradigm is where the problem resides.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management does this all of the time in their denial letters:  They extrapolate only the selective portions of the medical record which will support a denial; they will ignore “the law” and the application of the law; they will make statements which “imply” certain consequences, and multiple other actions (or inactions) which leave chunks of information out.

Contact an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and make sure and force OPM to do what they are supposed to do: Of being an objective and uninterested party in the determination of your Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application 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.

Permanent Disability Retirement from Federal Employment: The Importance of Relevance

How does one determine “relevance”?  Relevance, in the end, is the logical connection established within a context of something being said or done.  We know it when its opposite is exposed — as when a person begins to speak extemporaneously and wanders off beyond the confines of the subject at hand.

There are consequences to irrelevance: Students begin to skip classes when lectures focus upon the irrelevant; meetings become lengthy acts of boredom; movies, books and other mediums lose their audience; and the focus of whatever is being done or said becomes lost in a maze of peripheral non-issues.  The importance of relevance is defined by the unimportance of irrelevance; we know the former when too much of the latter is infused.

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 job, the importance of relevance at all levels of preparing, formulating, filing and appealing one’s OPM Disability Retirement application cannot be overemphasized: Contact an attorney who specializes in the area of Federal Disability Retirement Law and make sure that your FERS Disability Retirement application is based upon relevant information, and not the superfluous inanities which can defeat your purposeful focus — of obtaining an approval of your OPM Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Out of Love

There can be a duality of meanings, of course — of doing X “out of love” or “being” out of love.  The two are opposites, or of conceptual antonyms.  What does it mean to act “out of love” — in the first sense of the phrase?  Does being compensated for doing something necessarily and immediately cancel any notion that one is doing it with the pure motive “out of love”?

Take the following hypothetical: A man foregoes a career and all advancement opportunities to take care of his sick uncle.  He does this without complaining, always with tenderness and care.  The neighbors are full of empathetic praise, saying things like, “Oh, what a wonderful and caring young man,” and “He is so devoted to him!”

Later, in the gossip columns of life’s entreaties, there is a footnoted notation that the young man inherited a large sum of money, and that the source from which the inheritance came had a contingency of requirements: In order for the young man to receive the money, he “had to” take care of his uncle and never complain about it. Do such revelations extinguish the previous praise showered?

And of the “other” conceptual bundle: How does one fall “out of love” — as if love is something we mistakenly fall into, to begin with, like a cavernous hole in the middle of our paths that we accidentally stumble into and, still later in the relationship, we similarly “fall out of” in the same manner?  Do conceptual confusions as applied to individuals have any meaning when universalized?

For instance, can a greater society do things “out of love” for its citizenry, and retract them just as quickly because it has later fallen “out of love”?  Politics aside, the wide pendulum of policymakers tinkering with an employee’s benefits can make a difference for the individuals impacted.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that it becomes necessary to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether “out of love” in the first sense, or from the perspective of the Federal Agency or the Postal Service who once thought of the Disability Retirement applicant as the paragon of the great worker but has now fallen “out of love” in the second sense — the necessity of filing for FERS Disability Retirement is a reality that must be faced.

We all have to contend with misapprehensions of motives and intentions; of gossip and people talking about the personal affairs of others whom they barely know. Supervisors, coworkers, and all of those who make judgments in an offhanded way — that is not what should be the primary concern of the Federal or Postal employee who files for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Instead, whatever the motivation — of a system which allows for an early medical retirement “out of love” or of a Federal Agency or Postal Service which has fallen “out of love” with an employee — the primary focus should be upon one’s own health, and to take care of one’s self “out of love”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: In the way

We talk about objects being “in the way”; of an accident on the road and we complain, “Why can’t they just pull over and get their vehicles out of the way?”  We use similar phraseology when we “objectify” human beings, as in — when we seethe with anger and retribution at some person — the threatening tone of: “Stay out of my way!”

Does the subtle (or not so subtle) alteration in language’s usage determine how we treat another human being?  When a driver gets irritated with a bicyclist who is not so adept at keeping a straight and narrow line on the roadway, do we forget suddenly the value of human life and see it merely as an “object” that is “in the way”?

And when you read of stories of human tragedies — of a person who negligently ran over a person and seriously injured or — worse, yet — killed a pedestrian, we realize the thin line between insanity and rationality, of love and hate, and the vulnerability of passions left out of control and going berserk when it is often the language we use so carelessly that leads to the tumults of life’s misgivings.

Objects are often “in the way”; can it ever be that people are also?  Do we bypass one another and ignore the plight of others because of our capacity and ability to objectify those very subjects we want to ignore and avoid?

Utopia is an idea of human perfection; the reality of this real world is quite different, where love, cooperation and human compassion lags far behind because the essence of human nature is far below the paradigm of perfection.  Honking the horn at something “in the way” when one is backed up on the highway in a state of frustration may well shed one of some frustration — until we learn later on that it was the body of a young child hit by a car because he was “in the way”.

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 job, the concept of “in the way’ is a familiar one — for, the Federal or Postal worker has knowledge of it both as an object, as well as a subject.

The “medical condition” itself is “in the way” — seen as an object that has become an obstacle. Conversely, the Federal Agency or the Postal Service begins to see that once-stellar, high-performing individual — you — as something “in the way” of the Federal Agency’s “mission” and the Postal Service’s “work”.

When the Federal Agency or the Postal Service begins to see a Federal employee as an object, as opposed to a subject, then you know it is time to begin to prepare, formulate and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, lest you become another casualty left in the heap of roadside debris as a passing car yells, “You were in the way!”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: The spare

It is a peculiar word when left alone, for it often is used with an accompaniment, as in “a spare tire”, “With room to spare”, or even, “Do you have any spare change?” queried the panhandler to the passerby.  It is a word which either describes a certain set of circumstances or of a person’s demeanor, characteristic or even of physical features, as in: “He had a spare bedroom”; “He was a spare, bald-headed man”; or how about: “He was spent and had no energy to spare”?

But to make it into the central character, as in the title above — “The spare” — makes it suddenly rather peculiar, for it is meant to always be the character actor, the word that “adds onto other words” and the unique little offshoot that never takes center stage.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition where the medical condition begins to impact the Federal or Postal employee’s ability and capacity to continue in the chosen career of one’s life, the word retains multiple relevant applications, whether standing alone or in accompaniment with other words.

For the Federal employee or Postal worker who no longer has any spare energy left at the end of the day; when one must be careful in using sparingly any accrued Sick Leave or Annual Leave; when time can no longer be spared beyond doctor’s appointments and attending to work, family obligations and the spare time no longer forthcoming; and where that spare reserve of energy is now devoid and profound fatigue has set in, it becomes time to consider preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement, because any spare time, effort or energy has now become a deficit to be reckoned with, where the spare of anything and everything must be focused upon that which can never be spared: One’s health.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Representation: Conversations

What is a conversation?  Or, is it an empirical phenomenon that — only when we are in the middle of it — we know as we experience it, but otherwise is undefinable?  If there are 5 people in a room but only 1 is doing the talking, is a conversation ongoing?  Must there be a “back and forth” give and take, or must something more be involved?  If the same 5 people are in the same room, and all of them are talking all at once, does that rise to the level of a conversation?  Does interruption and talking over one another undermine the definition?

What if there is extraordinary politeness — of each waiting his and her turn — and where no one interrupts, there is a pause between each discourse and a civility beyond mere lack of rudeness, but upon listening, one realizes that each one of the individuals is speaking about a completely different topic, and there is no interaction or even acknowledgment that anyone is listening to anyone else — does this all of a sudden undermine the concept of what is occurring?

This is an Age of Discord — of intractable positions taken, where the foundations that once formed the Age of Reason have been decimated and we are left with empty voices of loud vehemence, hollow in content but roaring in volume.  Truth, objectivity, logic and rational methodology — the very essence of discourse and conversation — have been hollowed out and cast aside.

It is now in camps of “us” against “them”, but the singular missing component that has devastated the capacity to have a conversation is the one that no one ever talks about: The ability to recognize and admit that someone else’s argument is superior to one’s own.

When was the last time you heard someone say: “Hey, that argument is quite good and persuasive.  I think you are right.”?  Instead, it is the familiar refrain: “That’s just your opinion.”  And as the volume of decibels increases, the content of substance proportionately and precipitously falls.

There are, of course, various levels of conversations, but one level is clear: Listen to the other side.  This also includes reading, recognizing and understanding the applicable statutes in an administrative process in order to meet all of the elements of the burden of proof.  Being intransigent and stubborn are qualities that makes one feel empowered, but concurrently, are often self-defeating.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal and Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it all begins with knowledge — of the statutes, the case-law and the precedents that apply.

We may all have to concede that the Age of Conversations is over; what we may be left with is a process where, at the very least, one must listen and try to learn.

Federal Disability Retirement is an administrative process which is never simple, and must be approached with knowledge, tenacity and an ear to listening to what is needed in order to meet the eligibility requirements.  Having a medical condition is a start, but it is not enough.  And like conversations that may have started but puttered out without fanfare, preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application will take more than talking about how we “feel”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Medical Retirement: Best/Worst Case Scenario

It is a procedural approach, and those who engage in it often have the greater talents akin to science, engineering, mathematics and symbolic logic.  It is the person who views every contingency in terms of best and worse case scenarios before deciding upon a determined course of action.

But how accurate is the “best” and the “worst”?  How can one determine if the informational input that is “fed” into the substance of that which will result in the output of what is described as the “best” and the “worst” is accurate enough to make it even worthwhile?  Does a gambler enter into a casino and make such assessments? Of thinking to him/herself in terms of: If I place X amount on the table and lost it all, what is the best case scenario, and what is the worst?  When a person begins a career, does he or she begin life with the same approach?  How about marriage?  Or having children?  Or, is it more likely that such an application really has a very limited impact, and should be used sparingly in the daily events of life’s encounters?  Is that a false set of alternatives precisely because there are many incremental and relevant “in-betweens” that may determine one’s course of action?

Perhaps the picture painted of the “best” scenario of outcome determinatives need not be the basis for one’s decision, and even the “worst” case scenario need not be the minimum standard or quality of life that we would accept, but somewhere in between or just shy of that extreme cliff that we have described?  Perhaps they are false alternatives when we present it in that light, with only those two extremes of alternative realities to consider?

For the Federal or Postal employee who suffers 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 the Federal or Postal employee’s job with the Federal Agency or the Postal Service, preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application does not need to be based upon false alternatives presented, but should instead be based upon a pragmatic step towards recognizing the reality of one’s medical condition, its impact upon one’s capacity and ability to continue in a job or career that may be detrimental to one’s health, and proceed based upon the totality of factors considered – but primarily with a view towards safeguarding one’s health.

Health is that “other factor” that tips the balance of what is the best or worst case scenario; for, in the end, there is no scenario at all without one’s health.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Fate and fatalism

When people talk about “fate”, they must mean something more than what they actually state in an explanation.  People often misspeak, of course, or explain with justification without much thought put into the narrative given.  So, when a person says, for example, that “X happened,” and when asked why, the response is often, “Oh, it was just fate.  It was meant to be.”  What can that possibly mean?

To say that X occurred because it was “fated”, or was “meant to be”, is no different than to say that an apple is a fruit because it’s not an orange; it is a mere tautology that appears to give an explanation for the occurrence or justification for its designated category of identification, but provides no greater insight after the delineated discourse than before.

So, people must mean something else – perhaps (and this is pure conjecture and attempting to attribute kindness to an otherwise empty explanation) what is meant is that there is a Greater Being who intended and planned it; that, life in general retains a purposive direction, or that an underlying teleological undercurrent maintains a semblance of significance and relevance.

On the other hand, most people who talk about “fate”, when queried further, don’t quite believe in its cousin – fatalism.  The latter is the doctrine that things are bound by a predetermined sequence, however it may be fashioned, and one is unable to change the course of history.

We all like to believe that we have some “say so” in the process of our lives – that free will exists (even if one believes in the contradictory notion of an omniscient being who is omnipotent, as well) and that our choice in the matter makes some sort of a difference.  Such a notion, we often believe, makes a difference; otherwise, why even try?

Thus, people who believe in “fate” can be said to be “positive” looking, in that events that have occurred were as a result of “fate” in the sense that it turned out that way because it was meant to be so, without getting caught up in the negativism of “fatalism”, which more denotes a sense of helplessness and inability to have any say-so in one’s future.

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, the key in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application is likened to believing in “fate”, but refrain from falling into the trap of fatalism.

You do have a choice in the matter; how you formulate the Federal Disability Retirement application does make a difference; and while you may not have much control over your medical conditions, the choices you make in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application will have some relevance and significance for your future, so long as you approach it as fated, without a sense of fatalism.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire