FERS Medical Retirement from OPM: Objectivity

In the West, the traditional approach is to be far removed and dispassionate in attempting to attain that level of acceptable discernment.  If there is even a whiff of personal involvement, a suspicion of a self-serving motive, or some indication of emotional application, the revered status of objectivity comes into question.

For some unknown reason, the label “To be objective” must ignore and minimize all that is preternaturally human.  A Kantian would argue that objective knowledge is a goal inherently impossible to achieve, precisely because we possess only subjective capabilities and impose our worldview upon everything we analyze, evaluate and assess.

To that extent, it becomes a mere tautology, for if we are incapable of reaching beyond  ourselves, then there would be no point in even trying.  But try we do, and in the Western Philosophical tradition, we employ devices such as Logic, the Socratic method of endless self-examination, and a touch of mystical fairy dust sprinkled as “objective analysis”.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who submit a Federal Disability Retirement Application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the FERS system, the argument for objectivity is often refuted by OPM based upon a “lack thereof”.  OPM will argue that the “pain” one experiences, or the emotional impact from psychiatric conditions, is “purely subjective” and is therefore invalid as a basis for approving a FERS Disability Retirement application.

This, too, is a circular, tautological argument, precisely because ‘pain’ by definition, is always subjective.  Yet, that is not what the applicable law concerning the established legal criteria of proving a FERS Disability Retirement case holds, and despite OPM knowing this, they will systematically ignore the applicable laws governing FERS Disability Retirements.

In order to rebut OPM’ s baseless charge that your Federal Disability Retirement case lacks objectivity, contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in the practice area of OPM Disability Retirement Law, and successfully refute the fallacy of objectivity or the lack thereof.

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: Not for Public Viewing

Whether such a statement or declaration is actually applicable today is questionable.  For, is anything left to the privacy of one’s insular imagination, anymore?  Everyone bares all — of private, intimate details; of private parts, private affairs, private moments, private thoughts; no matter, just post it onto social mediums and allow everyone into your bedroom.

Private “gentleman’s clubs” often had rooms “not for public viewing”, and in stodgy buildings hidden away with a grim-faced doorkeeper ready to bar your entrance, one learned that nothing actually of a salacious manner (or matter) occurred behind those heavy brass doors, but merely old men who wanted to smoke a cigar and read the financial papers in peace.

Medical conditions are the exception.  They are the issues not for public viewing, and that remains somewhat valid today.  For, of the privacy which we all cherish and attempt to protect, our medical conditions remain at the top of the list.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a health condition such that the health condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the basic elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, maintaining one’s privacy in the face of preparing and submitting an effective disability retirement application may be a priority, but one which must be balanced between the voluntary submittal of a FERS Federal Disability Retirement application and the need to protect such sensitive information in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application to a large, faceless bureaucracy such as the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Contact a Federal Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law and see whether or not preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal or Postal Service Disability Retirement application under the current Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, can be accomplished — to the extent possible — while protecting that which is Not for Public Viewing.

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 Retirement from Federal Gov. Employment: The Viable Argument

In this postmodern era, is there such a thing?  What was once illogical — or, even worse, absurd — is now considered an acceptable and viable argument.

Logical fallacies are accepted; non-sequiturs are fully embraced; whether or not the “middle term” is carried over from the major premise to the minor is irrelevant; and “just because” is nowhere blinked at, as the final conclusion to every argument these days is that “everyone is entitled to his or her opinion” and it matters not whether specific facts undermine a viewpoint expressed.

Thus, does it even make a difference whether or not an argument is “viable” enough?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, an argument used in attempting to persuade OPM to approve your Federal Disability Retirement application is one which must appeal to the Statute, the Regulations, or to MSPB and/or Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Case-Law precedents.

Yes, there is still a distinction between an irrelevant, weak and inconsequential argument, and a viable one.  The viable argument is one based upon facts, the law, and an irrefutable delineation logical fortitude.  In order to make the viable argument, contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal 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.

 

FERS Disability Retirement Annuity: Words that Matter

Do words matter?  Or, are actions the sole province of a substantive discourse?

The words, “I love you” have swooned countless couples into foolishly entering into bonds which later fail; or of the promise, “Till death do us part” have been rendered meaningless by innumerable violations of infidelity and divorce.

In forming contracts, of course — even verbal ones — words make a difference.  The technical definition of complex transactions involving the transfer of money for goods; the regulatory oversights in government procurement agreements; and many others — they make a difference.

On the other hand, if a person boasts to no one in particular, or to everyone, or even to someone, that “I am going to rob a bank” — but then does nothing to initiate any actions towards that end, do the words matter at all?  Or, a person who sits and declares to himself, “I will get up and make some scrambled eggs in a minute”, and states this refrain 10 times a day but never gets up to cook the eggs, and doesn’t even have any eggs in the refrigerator — do those words “matter”?

And what do we mean by “matter”?  Does it by necessity imply some consequential effect from a cause which is motivated by intention?

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 words that matter are those which are formulated to effectively persuade the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to grant you your Federal Disability Retirement application.

In order for that to occur, contact and consult with an OPM Disability Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of formulating the words which matter.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement Benefits: Succor

It is an unused word, likely because no one knows how to properly pronounce it, and even if it is pronounced properly, it would be misunderstood and thought to have either been misused or viewed as a blot against the user for attempting to insert a word in a conversation which nobody comprehends the meaning of, anyway.

It is a noun.  It is defined as providing “assistance in times of distress or hardship”, as in, “X gave succor to Y when he most needed it”, or some such similar usage and application.  Or: “The succor provided was inadequate”, or “Mary was succored by the community and greatly appreciated such kindness”.

Do words that never get used matter?  Why are there synonyms, and not just a single word describing a singular event or occurrence, and are there societies in which a 1-to-1 ratio of word-to-phenomenon is so unique as to never lack for clarity precisely because the reservation of a particular word has a singularity of meaning such that there can never be a deviation from its proper application?

Words have meanings — thus stated in the plural, we recognize that either in the subject or in the predicate, the multiplicity of applications can result in confusion.  How about the following: A single word has a particular meaning.  But that is not true; at least, not in the English language.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are undergoing hardships because of a medical condition, such that consideration must be given to filing a Federal Disability Retirement application through OPM, seek the succor of an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.  In other words: Look for guidance and counsel from an experienced attorney who knows the process of filing an effective OPM Disability Retirement application.

Why we need “other words” remains a mystery.

Sincerely,

Robert R.McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Life as a Series of Problems

There are television series; of “mini-series”; of a series of movie episodes once popularity of the first viewing has established the call for a following.

In television and theatrical drama, there has to be an opportunity for “character development” — of getting to “know” a person, of seeing him or her in various contexts in order to determine “who” a person is by what they do, how they react and the very essence of their belief-systems.  Rarely is a play, a story or a novel of any interest when it involves a person or multiple individuals sitting around expounding upon their beliefs or “principles” of life, and why is that?  Is it because a person who talks without being tested can offer nothing more than the sound of air?

The movie of life always presents us with a series of problems; that is what makes a good story, of course — of conflicts, their resolution; the way in which individuals are “tested”, and not merely by hypothetical presentations of analytical problem-solving gestures.

Medical conditions — whether later in life or occurring earlier— always present a challenge that tests a person in so many ways, precisely because medical issues hit at the core of everything about a person: How we see ourselves; what we are able to do; where we go and seek guidance and counsel; and all of the multitude of reverberating effects upon so many varied aspects of our lives.

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, filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS is just one of life’s series of problems.

It is never a guarantee; it is never a “sure thing”; and as OPM appears to be denying more FERS Disability Retirement cases under this Administration than ever before, it is important to prepare and formulate a plan for a Federal Disability Retirement application and to recognize it as another slice of life’s problems in a series of such problems.

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

 

Lawyer for Federal Disability Retirement claims: Fact and opinion

These days, the distinction between the two has been almost completely lost.  One must qualify such a statement with “almost”, only because there may still be minority bastions and pockets of hope still holding out that the madness prevailing will someday be overcome.

Somehow, the lines bifurcating the distinction that once were so obvious became obscured, until suddenly it was no longer a matter of just blurry lines, but the lines themselves had disappeared, and no one spoke as if there was a difference to be had.  Facts were confirmed and established “somethings” in either the objective world or of tradition-laden statements that we could all agree upon; opinions were various interpretations of those commonly-accepted facts, interspersed with the subjective content that often prefaced with, “It is my opinion that…”.

We have now discarded even the prefatory admonition, now, because it has become an unnecessary addendum; since there are no longer any facts, and everyone is privileged to hold an opinion, we go ahead and speak not facts because our opinion holds out just as well, thank you very much.

Where did it all begin?  Was it because Plato made too much about the difference between reality and appearance — so much so that he was forced to manufacture his conceptual fiction of ethereal “Forms” that itself became so problematic?  Or was it with Descartes, where certainty of one’s own existence became relegated to the subjective “I”, and so it was bound to become a muddle as more and more philosophers came to realize that, like Russell’s muse about language and the destruction of the traditional correspondence theory of truth, statements made could not so easily be identified as either fact or opinion.

It becomes much more problematic when statutory, reputation, education and logical methodology are altogether discarded and made irrelevant, and so we come back full circle in questioning ourselves, the categorizations we have imposed, and how to get beyond the conundrum of modernity’s own making.

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 job or Postal position, the question concerning “fact or opinion” is an important one, because the weaving of one into the other is queried in Standard Form 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability.

How one’s answers are formulated and presented; whether they can be verified, established, “backed up with facts” as opposed to being left as mere subjective opinions — are all bundled up and contained within the questions asked, and how you will be answering them.

Fortunately, there is still remaining an approach and methodology of presenting facts as facts, and setting aside opinions and interpretations of the facts, and in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it is important to recognize the difference still, and be cautious in completing SF 3112A in light of modernity’s obsessional disorientation on the difference between fact and opinion.

Just the facts, as stated by my opinion.

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

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement from OPM: Ruminations on the past

Whether one does X is often of little significance; “Why” it is done, and to what extent, is quite another matter.  The past – whether of long ago, beyond the time of memory holding presently or of history being read about, or the past of one’s own kept in sequestered moments of reflective thought and in photographs carefully guarded and encased within a protective album of shelved remembrances – is a time behind; the future, an angst-filled uncertainty few of us look forward to.

It is the present, and how we treat it, spend it, work it and waist it away or labor furiously to appear “productive” about; and then, there are ruminations on the past.

That is where the “why” and the constant obsessions begin to overwhelm – of what we could have done differently, where we “went wrong” and what lessons can be gleaned for today.  Ruminating on the past is a favorite pastime for many; but when it begins to destroy the future by robbing from the present, it is time to set aside such wasted efforts and begin to focus more upon one’s current situation in order to prepare for the 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 time to set aside ruminations on the past is “now”.

Preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, takes up a significant amount of time, effort and required focus upon gathering the necessary information, presenting the compelling facts and establishing the legal nexus between the medical conditions and the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position.

In doing so, ruminations on the past need to be suspended; angst-ridden obsessions about the future will need to be ignored; and only the “present” focus will become the necessary standard.  Ruminations on the past can come about sometime in the future; it is the present concern about past events that will be significant in securing one’s future by preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire