FERS Disability Retirement: The Hope Next Door

Hope is the basis of life prolonged; it is why people buy lottery tickets, go to sleep soundly with an expectation that tomorrow will be different; and that, like the old quiz-shows of choosing “Door Number One, Door Number Two, or Door Number Three…” — we retain a hope that life will present us with the good luck, tomorrow or the next day, to choose the right “door” for our lives.

Few of us are smart enough to think in terms of Bertrand’s Box Paradox — presented as a veridical paradox in elementary probability theory.  We are rarely as rational as to embrace life in such a calculating, methodical or mathematical manner.  Instead, most of us blunder through where hope = ongoing existence, even if in reality we know that situations and events don’t often change no matter how hard we try.

Society as a whole — of governments and the Age of Therapy — perpetuates the concept of “the Hope Next Door”.  Politicians running for the Senate, House or state positions make promises all the time, knowing that he or she will merely be one representative within a cauldron of many, and will never be able to pass any legislation because there will never be a consensus enough to do so.

But words have a powerful effect in engendering the hope next door; somehow, we tend to be gullible no matter how many times we get duped.  Thus, the famous quote normally attributed to the greatest showman on earth, P.T. Barnum, that there is “a sucker born every minute”.  Why such gullibility?  Because, without hope, existence itself would be too bleak to go on; and thus do politicians, used-car salesmen and con artists sell not promises, but hope.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition and need to file for Federal Disability benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the Hope Next Door may well be to obtain an approval for a Federal Disability Retirement annuity, so that you can focus upon regaining your health.

Contact a FERS Disability Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and look for the Hope Next Door that is real, and not merely as a chimera sold as snake oil or words of eloquence.

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 Benefits: The Decision to Proceed

It is the final act of the will — of the bridge between thought and action, which will often result in burning the bridge once one has crossed it.  The thought-process which culminates in the decision to proceed involves many facets encompassing all of the steps before the finalization of the action itself.

In stealing a candy bar from a store — of weighing the consequences if caught; of the chances that anyone is looking; whether, if caught, would the police be called, your parents informed, etc.  Of whether to get married — are you ready for a commitment which may involve having children?  Is the potential partner compatible?  Can you imagine yourself being together with him/her 10, 20, 30 years hence?

Or, for Federal employees and U.S Postal workers who suffer from a medial condition and need to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — can you stay at your job until retirement age?  Is your performance suffering such that your agency may place you on a Performance Improvement Plan?  Are you on the verge of simply resigning and walking away because you cannot do your job anymore — and is that a wise decision as opposed to preparing, formulating and filing an application for OPM Disability Retirement?

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider whether or not filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS through OPM may be the best course of action in the progressive thought process leading to the decision to proceed.

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 Disability Retirement: Thought versus thoughtless

Does the former have an advantage over the latter?  Our tendency is to think so — as in, “Being a thoughtful person is better than being a thoughtless person.  And, in any event, it is always better to think about things than not to.”

Really?  Does reality bear such a thought out, and does thinking about something as opposed to its opposite — not thinking about it — gain any advantage?  Does Man’s biological advancement through evolutionary selectivity of genetic dominance necessarily favor those who engage in the activity of “thinking” over those who do not?

Take the following hypothetical: An individual must make a “serious” decision — i.e., perhaps about one’s future, career, marriage, etc.  He is told to “take some time to think about it”, and does so dutifully.  He speaks with others; does some reading; mulls over and “reflects” upon the issue; takes out a yellow-pad and writes the columns, “Pros” and “Cons”, and after days, weeks, perhaps even months, comes to a decision.  Within a couple of years of making the decision, he realizes that he has made a fatal error.

Now, the counterexample: Same scenario, but in response, the individual says, “Naw, I don’t need to think about it.  I just go on what my gut tells me.”  He goes out, parties, avoids “thinking” about it, and the next morning makes that “important” decision.  He remains happy with the decision made for the remainder of his life.  So, the obvious query: What advantage did one have over the other, and what fruitful outcome resulted from “thought” versus “thoughtlessness”?

Yet, we persistently hear the phrase, “I should have thought about it,” or “I should have given it more thought” — always implying that, had further reflection been accorded, had additional wisdom been sought, or multiples of contemplation allowed, ergo a different result would have been achieved.

The error in the logic of such thinking is that one assumes a necessary connection between “result” and the activity of “thinking”, when in fact it is the very activity itself which retains a value in and of itself.  “Thought,” “thinking” and “thoughtfulness” are activities which have a value by themselves.  The satisfaction of a result-oriented, retrospective according of value based upon an outcome achieved is to place the value upon the wrong end.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are “thinking” and engaging in “thoughts” about preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, there comes a time when a “decision” must be made.  “Thoughtfulness” is an activity worth engaging in, regardless of the outcome of the activity itself.

In engaging such an activity, it may be worthwhile to seek the advice of an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law — if only to consider the evolutionary advantages in thinking about thoughtful activities as opposed to the thoughtless decisions made by an unthinking thoughtlessness.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation for OPM Disability Claims: The double-negative

Does it “tell” more than the positive?  Is the reduction by twice negating words of positive connotation a lesser meaning — a “softer landing approach” — than to declare it with a single positive note?

Thus, when a parent declares to a close friend or neighbor that his or her son or daughter is “not unpopular”, is it not the same as proudly stating, “He is popular”?  Is the double-negative more humble and sound less like bragging?  Is the meaning not unclear, or less unlikely, or not incomprehensible?  Or, what about a triple negative — say, if a person says that he is not not uncomfortable — is it a more polite manner of telling another that he is uncomfortable, but does each negative remove the bluntness of the root word such that the repetition of negation undoes what the foundation of the meaning provides for?

And how did grammar translate from linguistic insularity to real life?  When and how did we learn to speak in such negations?  Is it by stealth or cover-up that grammar reflects upon the negation of words, thus transferring such concealment into the language games we play?  Do we wear sunglasses to hide our eyes from remaining open as the window to our own souls?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the application of the double-negative becomes infused in everyday encounters with the workplace — of needing to use Sick Leave in order to attend to one’s health, but trying to appear well at work so that the workplace barely notices; of trying to remain in corners of anonymity despite feeling the need to be “up front” about it; and of appearing to be “healthy” on the outside and yet feeling the dread of hopelessness on the inside.

The double-negative is too often a reflection upon the way we are forced to live, and for the Federal or Postal employee who by necessity must file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is a reality that must unfortunately be faced every day.  But filing is important, and making that decision is a crucial one that must be faced — or, in the manner of the double-negative, it is not unimportant to begin the process of filing something as administratively complex as something which is not incomprehensible.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Character Deficits

We all have them; we just never like to admit them to others (which, of course, becomes unnecessary and an irrelevancy if one has a spouse, who is more than willing with energetic bluntness and zeal to volunteer as the one to point them out, quite vocally at that, and without a hint of jealousy at not having them, and with a fury of warning looks darting at crosswinds if one dares to suggest otherwise).  Whether by deep in the recesses of forgotten caverns of childhood psyche damaged in the whirlwinds of growing up, or infected by osmosis by bad company in good times, we will never know.

Freudians believe in such origins within the occipital lobe (or was that post-Freudian or Jungian?); and Aristotle believed in the irrelevancy of such judgments until late in one’s life; but at every stage of a linear progression in life’s trials, we recognize the negation of perfection, and that is clearly represented by the mirror image of the ruling animal of this earth.

Most of us battle throughout our lives – not so much to correct the deficiencies, but to deny, rebut and otherwise patch over any allegations and prosecutorial insinuations that we have them.  In other words, we worry more about the appearance of reputation, as opposed to the essence of the core by which we exist, and to that extent, Plato was right in directing our attention to the universality of Forms, thereby concentrating our attention upon extrapolated natures and thus allowing for the conversation of human folly to be engaged in by third-person accounts and objectified measures.

Otherwise, if we look too closely to the glare of our own reflection, the ugliness of a magnified being would be too much to bear.  Has there ever been a time in history when man held closely to the self-realization of such negations of angelic features?  Perhaps when the onerous hand of belief, the days of torture in Seville when the Grand Inquisitor roamed the homes of suspected idolatry (and spurred the imagination which produced Dostoevsky’s masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov); but even then, we all reserve our suspicions that the closeted man was just as evil, just as mischievous and likely more so in the veil of virtue and virulent self-flagellation against vices known or otherwise hidden.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who experience the modern version of a witch-hunt, it is time to prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application in order to escape the wrath of the Agency’s predatory appetite.  The U.S. Postal Service and the Federal Agency are predatory animals who can sniff out the scent of weakened prey; and as the Federal or Postal employee, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, who has a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing all of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, necessarily becomes the focus of attention, it becomes an inevitability that issues involving character deficits will arise.

From the agency’s standpoint:  No longer the competent golden boy or wonder girl, but suddenly faults abound and in endless streams of negative assessments.  From the Federal or Postal employee’s perspective:  The continuing battle to prove ourselves.  Is it all worth it?  Or is it just another character deficit that we have to contend with, as we have been doing all of our tireless lives?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The Flavor of Our Times

Each generation has a flavor of the times — that obscure and fuzzy sense of “something” beyond which one cannot quite describe, but nevertheless leaves a distinctive aftertaste that remains and cannot be washed away.  Hypocrisy may come close to identifying it — of saying one thing, meaning another; of using words and virtual reality in order to conceal the true motive and intentions.  We see it in our politicians, in newspapers and neighborly barbecues; as truth is not the sought-after goal, and as relativism and the capacity to perform linguistic gymnastics at every turn of words, so the natural consequence of our deeds should not surprise us.  We claim empathy, but act indifferently; we teach our kids grandiose belief-systems, then act surprised when rebellion monitors the day.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, the stark reality of what they hear as the “official” pronouncement of one’s agency, as opposed to the practical and day-to-day occurrence and action in “real time”, is like the echoing chasm of a hollow pit which reverberates with each unintelligible sound.  All of the rules and regulations promulgated for public consumption about protecting the rights of disabled Federal employees sound like collected baseball cards reserved for showing off to guests who are gullible enough to gasp with excitement over items of dubious value; but it is the “behind-the-scenes” reality of how individuals treat each other, which tells the true story of shame, deceit and indifference.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents him or her from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, the gap between declared public policy and the reality of that insular shame, is a daily recognition of man’s inhumanity to his or her fellow man or woman.  Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service workers experience this violation daily.  That is why opting to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is often the best, only, and remaining self-preservation option, to secure one’s future and to separate from Federal Service with a semblance of dignity.

Federal Disability Retirement benefits, filed through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, allows for the Federal or Postal employee to obtain a base annuity, then go into the private sector and begin to pursue a second, or third, vocation of choice.  It is not an abandonment of one’s principles, nor a retreat from one’s beliefs. That was already accomplished years ago, when the flavor of our times became the official stance of an uncaring system which betrayed the dedicated Federal or Postal employee merely because of a medical condition beyond one’s control.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Medical Retirement: The X Factor

In algebraic equations, it is that unknown variable which remains elusive and concealed, and which must be figured out in order to arrive at the conclusion.  We love those teachers who inform us that “credit” will be “given” for work shown, and that it is not so important to come up with the answer as opposed to the methodology manifested in reaching it.

And so we devised a complex network of signs and symbols, hoping that they concealed the ignorance of our unlearned lack of wisdom.  But the fact remains that leaving the factor unexplained and unfulfilled is like turning one’s back upon a helpless puppy abandoned in the middle of a busy freeway; somehow, the hollowness of leaving behind haunts one with a sense of incompleteness, like the puzzle with a missing piece.

These vestiges of psychological appendages, like damaging mollusks on the underbelly of a drifting boat, remain long after the effort to solve the equation is abandoned; for, in life, we think that all variables have an answer, if only we had listened carefully in the classes we skipped or during which we daydreamed and slept.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to seriously impact one’s ability and capacity to fulfill the positional requirements (or “essential elements”) described, the thought of abandonment through resignation or termination leaves that same taste of dismay and fear, like the residue of pine-goo on the palm of one’s hand.

The “other” option — which constitutes the solution of the X-factor — is 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.   While not widely advertised, OPM Disability Retirement is a benefit which is offered when a Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to, because of a medical condition, perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties within the Federal government or the U.S. Postal Service.

Thus, instead of remaining static in a state of utter frustration, attempting like those childhood years of yore when scratching one’s head, peeking over surreptitiously at the blank paper on the next desk, or looking with wonderment at the ceiling above as if the gods of information will reveal the answer through the illuminating fluorescence of those linear tubes, the Federal or Postal employee has the ultimate solution for the X-factor within grasp:  preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Explicit versus Implicit

The former leaves no room for confusion or doubt; the latter, a bit of “wiggle room” where insinuations, hints and suggestive openings are characteristic invitations of open regards.  They are not mutually exclusive within a paragraph or even a sentence; they are, however, antonyms, and should be used with context-defined relevance.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the choice of either can determine the future viability of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application.

Certainly, there are times in life when one chooses the latter methodology, for various reasons — perhaps being forthright and blunt is not the “right” approach; perhaps there is fear of offending, or mere laziness and sludge of confrontation prevents one from being straightforward.  In the legal arena, the former approach is preferable, if only to squeeze out the light of linguistic malleability and flexibility in supercilious argumentation.  But in the context of an OPM Disability Retirement packet, there will often contain multiple usages.

One’s Supervisor, in completing SF 3112B (Supervisor’s Statement), may present contradictory information by checking a box which is relatively unequivocal (is that an oxymoron — to use the terms “relatively” and “unequivocal” in the same breadth of a sentence?) but placing remarks implying the exact opposite in response to “explanatory” and more expansive questions.  Or, for the Federal Disability Retirement applicant, in completing SF 3112A, the “Applicant’s Statement of Disability”, there may be a strategy in mixing both explicit statements and providing for implicit openings for meanings and connections.

Certainly, the “law” of Federal Disability Retirement allows for it; but one must always take care in addressing the nature, extent and susceptibility of statutory interpretation in formulating one’s Federal Disability Retirement application.  Ultimately, as in most things in life, the former is preferable to the latter; though, wiggle room and the dictates social conventions may sometimes require one to be explicitly implicit in order to be inefficiently efficacious.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire