OPM Disability Retirement: The Preemptive Argument

There is always the danger accompanying it — That the presupposition was unfounded and you may be pointing out a problem that the other side never thought of.  We are all aware of what assumptions can lead to, and so to make a preemptive argument is to enter into dangerous waters where unseen dangers may lurk.

How does one make the right decision as to whether to include the preemptive argument and how prominently should one make it?  Such a question presupposes a cost-benefits analysis — of first determining how likely the other side will recognize certain weaknesses in your position, then providing the preemptive counterpoint accordingly.

In preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, whether at the initial Stage or at the responsive Reconsideration Stage of the process, the point of making a preemptive argument depends upon the purpose for which you are making it.

For, at the Initial Stage of the process, you should make such an argument in an understated manner, all the while emphasizing the overall strength of the case; whereas, in responding to an OPM Denial and providing a responsive legal memorandum, any preemptive argument should be made both as a response to OPM as well as a preemptive appeal to an Administrative Judge at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) — in other words, the elaboration of an anticipatory argument, presuming that OPM is likely to deny the case a second time, as well.

All preemptive arguments possess inherent dangers, but as OPM systematically engages in a shotgun-scattering approach in justifying its denial of a Federal Disability Retirement Application, it is likely that any preemptive argument is in little danger of bringing up any surprises which OPM hadn’t considered, anyway.

Consider contacting a FERS Attorney to prepare and formulate an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, especially when formulating a cogent argument of preemptive significance.

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.

 

Disability Attorney Representation After an OPM Application Denial: The Missing Piece

That is the height of frustration — of assembling something, perhaps a mechanical device, a complex toy for a child (or for the adult, for that matter), or going through a computer downloading process, etc. — and realizing that there is a “missing piece”.  Even in reading a book on a technical subject matter; of realizing that the author is assuming that the reader already knows about a concept being discussed, a historical event being referred to.

What did we all do before the capacity to “google” a subject?  Is that why rote memorization is no longer required — because we can all whip out our Smartphones and instantly become an expert on any subject by regurgitating upon the subject-matter description as provided by the internet?

The “missing piece” is often in the body of a denial rendered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in a denied Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS.

There may be many reasons given for the denial, but it is often a single missing piece of the puzzle which would have persuaded and convinced OPM to approve the case.  It would have been better, of course, to have anticipated the “missing piece” and to have preemptively made the proper argumentation in the original submission of the Federal Disability Retirement application.

Whatever the case may be, it is important to have a disability attorney recognize and identify, then to “fill in” the missing piece in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, or in rebutting an OPM Denial, whether for the Reconsideration Stage or even for the MSPB appeal.

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 under FERS: The Pariah

The irony is that some in the universe of bloggers and ceaseless appearances on the Internet consider that the word itself should be cast out of the sphere of daily lexicon usage; the word itself is considered a pariah, and therefore is treated as such.

Yet, words in and of themselves have no meaning; Wittgenstein is correct in positing that the concept of a “private language game” known exclusively to a single individual is nonsensical — literally — precisely because “meaning” is imported by the manner in which a word or sentence is communicated between two or more individuals, and the purpose and motive by which it is applied.

A pariah is an outcast, and there are many in the world who are treated as such.  Whatever its historical origins or derivative usage which have engendered insult or resulted in a connotation of disparagement, the problem is not in the word itself but in the motive behind its application.  The word itself is actually quite descriptive and describes accurately the manner in which many individuals in society are treated.  Expungement of the word would indeed be a great loss.

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 treatment of such individuals as a “Pariah” aptly describes how they are looked upon.

Consult with a Federal Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and see whether or not you might qualify for a Federal Disability Retirement annuity so that you can escape from the designation of a “pariah” and move forward in a life where you are treated as an equal, and not as an outcast.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: Waves of Misfortune

Metaphors allow us to understand our circumstances; by relating the circumstance to the natural world around us, we feel a greater kinship when, in all other aspects of our lives, we have tried to alienate ourselves and artificially separate our lives from the origins of our own existence.  Similes, of course, always contain the comparative contrast that allows for a space between that which is compared and the reality of “what is”.

Thus, to say that “X is like Y” is quite different from saying that “X is Y”, even though we know in both instances that X is not Y, and that is precisely why we assert that there is a likeness between X and Y (because “likeness” is not the same as “sameness”) and also why we declare X to be Y even though they are not one and the same.  Thus is there a difference between “Waves of misfortune” (a metaphor) and “Misfortune are like waves” (a simile).

The comparative preposition creates a once-removed parallelism (simile), whereas the metaphor makes no doubt of the mirror image of one with the other.

Medical conditions are more like metaphors (here, we are utilizing a simile to describe a metaphor); there is no space or removal between the situations being compared.  To have a medical condition is not “like” something else; rather, it is the reality of one’s existence.  It is through metaphors, however, as well as similes that we describe the symptoms to our doctors and others, to try and help them understand what it is like to be in constant pain, to be depressed, to be profoundly fatigued.

And for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition necessitates preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it must be understood that the Federal Disability Retirement “package” is a paper presentation to OPM, and thus must by necessity use both metaphors and similes in order to persuade OPM of having met the legal criteria of a FERS Disability Retirement application.

The “waves of misfortune” must be described persuasively, lest they become a metaphor for failure in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application that results in a denial as opposed to an approval.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM FERS Disability Retirement: Nothingness comes from flattery

It is what Cordelia recognized but which her father could not foresee, and the ruin of a kingdom, the loss of order and the crumbling of relationships resulted all because of the failure to recognize sincerity from entreaties based upon hidden motives of greed and the concealed hand of evil; and of the truism of ex nihilo nihil fit — that nothing comes from nothing — even Parmenides could not warn us of the consequences.

It is because flattery is nothing but — but an insincere cover for motives unrevealed; but a superficial sweetness that can never satisfy; but a swamp of words without substance that will sink into the muck of sycophantic drivel; but of nothingness.

Flattery is the most dangerous of invectives spewed precisely because the sugar that sweetens is that which energizes, but lasts for only a brief time before the reality of bitterness that is sure to follow cannot but hide the reality of a life hidden.  The starkness of reality is often too cruel to withstand, and so we invite the nothingness which comes from flattery.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition is about to end a career, the reality of the medical condition itself is what is often that which we wish could be covered by life’s sweetness.  We wish for X, but life has given us Y.  We thus hope for flattery to lessen the impact, but the reality of harshness refuses to lead us down into the pathway of nothingness.

Federal agencies are harsh entities; they may have flattered us in the past by making us think that we are invincible; that we “matter” to them; that we are part of a greater team, etc.

When a medical condition begins to prevent the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker from performing the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position, then suddenly the sugary voices of flattery become replaced with harassment, hostility and adverse actions. It is then time to prepare, formulate and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, to be submitted ultimately to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, where the greatest flattery of an approval of one’s Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application will reveal that, indeed, nothingness comes from flattery when a person has taken for granted that which is the more important element: one’s health.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation on Federal Disability Retirement Claims: “But…”

What is it about a certain voice inflection that forewarns us of that conjunction?  A long explanation is given; a reason for “why” a person is about to do something is adroitly conveyed; a detailed and rational discourse is provided; and yet something tells us that the inevitable “but” is about to be inserted, making of the independent clause just spoken merely a precursor for the real reason that the lengthy discourse was given in the first place.

It is also a metaphor for life itself, isn’t it? “Things were just great, and it was the happiest of times, but then…”.  It is like the metaphorical dark cloud that dampens the spirit, or the sudden gust of wind that topples the tower when one was just about to reach the apex; the “but” in our lives comes at the most inopportune of times.

Then, there is the causal intervention “but” in law, as in, “But for X, Y would have not been liable because X becomes the primary intervening cause that subverted Y and all other causal determinants.” But for this job, my life would be perfect; but for this minor incident in my otherwise stellar career, I would have been unstoppable; but for X, Y and Z, I would have reached olympian heights; and on and on.  Isn’t that what Bing Crosby said of Frank Sinatra (for those who are young enough to even remember such icons of yesteryears, that “But for Sinatra, I would have been the most popular singer of my time”)?

Medical conditions tend to insert that conjunctive into a life, don’t they?  For Federal and Postal employees who consider the “but” of a life to be that medical condition that has come to a critical juncture — not merely of a grammatical appendage, but of a true intervening cause that disrupts — because it prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of his or her Federal or Postal career, it may be time to begin to prepare, formulate and file 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.

The “buts” of life are merely conjunctives that forecast the darker clouds that rain upon an otherwise stellar experience; to alter the “but” and instead turn it into a mere “and” is what preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application can do, and thereby avert the “but” word that makes the remainder of the paragraph simply an extension of an otherwise joyful phenomena called “life”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Reality and poetry

A woman sits on a park bench surrounded by the concrete giants of looming buildings and antiseptic structures overhanging and overshadowing all but the remnants of nature’s detritus, with the cooing pigeons that bob their heads back and forth as they meander about in the contrast between reality and poetry.

And she has a book in her hands.  It is a book of poetry.  Who the author is; what the verses metaphorically narrate; how the images impact the quiet reader; these are not so important as the oxymoron of life’s misgivings:  A city; the overwhelming coercion of modernity’s dominance and encroachment into nature’s receding and dying reserve; and what we hang on to is a book of poetry that reminds us that beauty is now relegated to printed pages of verses that attempt to remind of beauty now forever lost.

No, let us not romanticize the allegory of a past life never existent, such as Rousseau’s “state of nature” where man in a skimpy loincloth walks about communing with nature’s resolve; instead, the reality that man has lost any connection to his surroundings, and is now lost forever in the virtual world of smartphones, computers, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Texting.

The tactile experiences of our individual encounters with the objective world is now merely the touch of a screen, and feel of glass, metal and plastic, and the pigeons we feed with such joy and excitement from park-benches manufactured with recycled materials so that we can “feel good” about the environment that we have abandoned.  And so we are left with the reality of our lives, and the poetry that we always try and bring into it, if not merely to remind us that there is more to it all than work, weekends and fleeting thoughts of wayward moments.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from an additional reality – of a medical condition that impacts his or her life in significant ways – the third component is not a mere irrelevancy that complicates, but often becomes the focal point of joining both reality and poetry.  Medical conditions have the disturbing element of reminding us of priorities in life.  Reality, as we often experience it, is to merely live, make a living, survive and continue in the repetitive monotony of somehow reaching the proverbial “end” – retirement, nursing home, sickness and death.

Poetry is what allows for the suffering of reality to be manageable and somehow tolerable; it is not just a verse in a book or a line that rhymes, but the enjoyment of moments with loved ones and those times when everything else becomes “worthwhile” because of it.  But then, there is the complication of a medical condition – that which jolts us into wakefulness of a reality that makes it painful and unacceptable.  What is the road forth?

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition now makes even work at the Federal agency or Postal facility intolerable, preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application is at least a path to be considered.  It is a long, arduous and difficult road that must wind its way through the U.S. Office or Personnel Management, but the choices are limited, and surely, you never want to abandon the poetry of life, and be left with only the reality of the medical condition?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement: The Value of Consistency

Consistency establishes validity; validation results in enhancement of credibility; and credibility prevails over minor errors and unintended oversights.  In analyzing a narrative, or engaging in a comparative analysis of two or more documents, it is the factual and historical consistency which allows for a conclusion of validated credibility. When a pattern of inconsistencies arise, suspicions of intentional misdirection beyond mere minor error, begins to tinge.

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, whether under FERS or CSRS, or even CSRS Offset, the question of sequential order of documentary preparation is important.  Such relevance on this matter can be gleaned if the preparation is looked at retrospectively — not from the beginning of the process, but rather, from the perspective of OPM and how they review and determine cases.

With that perspective in mind, it is important to prepare and formulate one’s Federal Disability Retirement application based upon the appreciated value of consistency, and as consistency of statements, purpose, coordination of documentary support and delineated narrative of one’s disability and its impact upon one’s inability to perform the essential elements of one’s positional duties is recognized, an effective Federal Disability Retirement application will be formulated with deliberative efficacy, and where retrospection through introspection will result in increasing the prospective chances of success.

Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Attorney: Playgrounds and the Collective Institution of Fair Play

We learn it early on; the unstated rules, the lines which may not be crossed, and to be weary of those whose reputation precedes them for the blatant disregard of both.  How they are learned; what they are; whether explicitly stated or impliedly conveyed; few, if any, have a memory where the Head Mistress of the Universe of Playgrounds sat us all down and said, “Now young ladies and gentlemen, here are the 10 rules of fair play.”  Regardless, we all somehow came to recognized and apply them.

Wittgenstein provides some valuable insight into the way we learn the language games involved in game-playing; much of it is through sheer doing, an ad hoc manner of practical reasoning and applied rationality.  And then, of course, we become adults (yes, at least most of us do; some, left behind on the playgrounds of life, remain as infantile cherubim, clueless and naive to the cynical ways of the world); and it always seems as if the same ones who violated the rules of the playground are the ones who flaunt the normative constraints of the greater universe.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are formulating a strategy for filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether one falls under the general aegis of FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the question often must be confronted as to the Supervisor, Manager, or even a fellow coworker who is pining for a confrontation and direct disregard of the collective institutional enforcement of what everyone else knows as “fair play”.

This, despite the fact that there are multiple Federal laws governing treatment of individuals with known medical disabilities.  But the Federal “system” of retaining workers with medical conditions and disabilities, and the perfunctory requirement of accommodations and the search to provide adequate accommodations, undermines any compelling force to restrain the playground bully.

OPM Disability Retirement benefits, filed either through one’s own agency if one is still on the rolls of the agency; or if separated, but less than 31 days since the official date of separation, in either case must be filed through the Human Resource Department of one’s own agency, or through H.R. Shared Services for Postal Workers (located in Greensboro, North Carolina); or, if separated for more than 31 days, then directly to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in Boyers, PA.

In the end, things rarely change much, if at all.  Those collective institutional enforcement mechanisms learned on the playground — tattling to the playground monitor or to one’s teacher; talking to one’s parents, etc. — end up with a snicker and a sneer.

Yes, society has become well aware of bullies and mean people, but they have been around longer than the oldest profession in the world, and the collective institution of fair play and the playgrounds upon which they played out, will continue to witness backstabbing and surreptitious violations, transferred universally to the places where adults play, and where the most vulnerable in need of the greatest protection, still must do things the old fashioned way:  reliance on sheer luck, or to seek the best legal advice possible.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Attorney: The Quality of Input

We often forget that the quality, validity and accuracy of conclusions produced by computers will depend upon the input of information provided.  Thus, predictability of future weather forecasts are contingent upon present information selected, and the computational analysis resulting in the future paradigm is founded upon current constructs, analyzed through the cumulative data previously provided, with a dash of witch’s brew and a genuflection of hope.  In other words, the trash produced results from the trash collected; a rather self-evident tautology of sorts.

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, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the issue of what information to provide, the amount of documentation, the precise wording selected, and the cumulative historical and current data introduced, will determine the statistical ratio of increased chance of success versus the possibility of an initial denial.

Receiving a denial from OPM is a down heartening experience, to put it mildly.  Expectations are that the subjective pain or psychiatric stresses which one experiences, will immediately be recognized and become translated into a societal benefit through a monetary annuity, especially as Federal Disability Retirement is an employment benefit offered for all FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset employees in the Federal system, and upon proof and sufficient information and documentation provided, one becomes eligible for the benefit.

The difference between preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, on the one hand, and computational analysis of information in other sectors of information processing, on the other, is that an intermediate human factor is present.

All Federal Disability Retirement applications are reviewed, scrutinized and evaluated for sufficiency by someone at OPM, and it is this very human element which remains the “X factor” in all Federal OPM Disability Retirement applications.  What can be done about it?  It is simply a reality which must be taken into account, processed and accounted for.  While bureaucratic and ultimately a rather depersonalized process, it is nevertheless an administrative system which must be faced.

It is as old as the ageless adage of yore, attributed to Isaac Newton:  What goes up must come down; or, what information is provided, is the basis of conclusions reached, and it is the quality of information in culling together a Federal Disability Retirement application which is paramount in achieving success.

 

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire