Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Callous Indifference

Can callousness be limited to indifference?  Or can it be active, affirmative, and intended?  Is there a qualitative difference between cruelty which is intended and that which disregard represents?

We often think of callousness as a passive activity — as in a person who walks past tragedy without giving a pause, a second thought or consideration.  But does it matter if a person instead stops, expresses empathy, speaks a lot of flowery words — then walks away still doing nothing?  Does the expression of “right and appropriate” words make a difference?  Or of the person who intentionally harms as opposed to refusing to intervene when cruelty is exposed — is there a qualitative difference between the two?

Agencies, entities, large corporations, bureaucracies, etc. — they are often charged with “callous indifference”, whether because they mechanically follow the dictates of an inflexible company policy, or because individuals within the company have become so attuned to a corporate attitude of indifference that they have simply lost their humanity.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition and can no longer perform all of the essential elements of the job, callous indifference is often the attitude encountered by the Federal agency or the Postal facility.  It is sadly a fact of life.  And if you decide it is time to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, you will likely find a similar attitude of callous indifference from your Human Resource Office — yes, that very department which is supposedly set up to be of assistance in the process.

Consult with a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin to separate yourself from the callous indifference of the world around, and initiate the process to take care of yourself in the process.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Standard of incompatibility

How does one “prove” a standard of “incompatibility”?

Physical injuries often allow for a medical opinion to impose certain restrictions:  No lifting more than X-pounds; no standing more than 2 hours within an 8-hour period, etc.  These, then, can directly “prove” that a Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, by comparing such restrictions as against the positional requirements of a given job, and “showing” that the standard required can no longer be met.

The “other” cousin of the standard, as reiterated by cases represented by Henderson v. OPM and related precedents, allow for a “different” type of proof, where one may show that there is a general incompatibility between the entirety of one’s position and the medical conditions one suffers from.

It might be argued that such a standard is more “nebulous” and “harder to prove”, but in fact, the opposite is often true: specificity on a 1-to-1 ratio between a given medical condition or symptom and an element of one’s positional duties no longer becomes necessary.  Rather, a general showing of incompatibility between the “type” of job and the “nature” of a medical condition is enough to qualify for Federal Disability Retirement.

The trick, of course, lies in the manner of “proving” it, but it should be of some comfort to Federal and Postal employees that there is another type of standard beyond the 1-to-1 ratio standard that applies generally for “physical” duties; for, in the end, many psychiatric conditions can only meet the “incompatibility” standard, although some specificity of inability to perform a particular function of the job may be present as well.

To meet either standard is a burden of proof that must be shown by the appellant in all OPM Disability Retirement cases; to understand, apply and satisfy such standards, it is best to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation on Federal Disability Retirement Claims: False notions

We all possess them; some, more than others; most, of a harmless variety where — so long as they are kept private and unannounced like an illegitimate child kept from the knowledge of one’s spouse, friends and family — no consequences ensue from the mere “having” of them.  False notions can take many forms, and on the spectrum of held beliefs, so long as one never “acts” upon them or otherwise expresses them in polite society, they remain the eccentric uncle that visits periodically but for short stays, and always tries to remain unobtrusive.

Say a person believes that the earth is flat — yes, there are many such people, to the extent that there are contingents of “flat earth societies” cropping up everywhere — but moreover, not only that the earth is flat, but you also believe that martians live on the far side of the moon, that every book published in the world over is written by Shakespeare, and that there is truly a wizard of Oz that controls the mechanism of the universe.  What harm is there in believing any of those?

Perhaps some are false notions; perhaps others are not.  So long as they do not intersect with conversations in the public domain, or do not interfere in the daily activities of living one’s life, is there any harm to possessing, maintaining, retaining and ascribing to false notions?

Take it a step further, however, and insert the following hypothetical: At a “get together” with coworkers and other departmental or other office personnel, a conversation begins with a group of gathered men and women, and someone begins talking about a new book that has just been reviewed by the New York Times Book Review Section, and one of the individuals pipes in that it, too, was written by Shakespeare.

The first person says, “No, no, it was written by so-and-so”, but the second individual persists and insists, and an argument starts: “No, it was written by Shakespeare.”  “You’re crazy.”  “No, you don’t know a thing!”  “And you probably believe that the earth is flat.”  And on and on.  Now, the next day, everyone is back at work — has anything changed?

Holding on to the false notions has not disrupted the flow of productivity, and the fact that one’s false notions were inserted unnecessarily into the daily discourse of other’s beliefs and understanding of an individual, has not disrupted the objective universe of those who gained further knowledge of another’s belief system.  False notions, then, so long as they remain private, or even when inserted into the public domain but without objective interference, may remain unobtrusive.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, however, who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition is beginning to prevent the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, a false notion can indeed have some deleterious consequences.

If you, as a Federal or Postal employee, possess a false notion of pride, or of loyalty to the Agency or the Postal Service at the expense of your health, and thus delay preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether as a FERS, CSRS or CSRS-Offset employee, the impact of further delay or procrastination can impact your health.

False notions are fine to foolhardily have fun with, but when it intersects with your health, it is time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

 

OPM Disability Retirement Benefits: “Where is it written?”

When rights are asserted, community dissipates.  When, once in years of yore, before modernity complicated the simplicity of human interaction and integrity of society’s binding ties, a handshake was all that was necessary to ensure the continuity of words spoken and promises committed.  Of course, con men and worthless statements of vacuity unfettered in boundless dishonesty have always existed, especially when such events quickly spread word within a cohesive community such that reputations rapidly disseminated and trust deteriorated to where no one would do business with “this or that” person, and he or she had to move someplace else.

“Where is it written?” is the query of a person who inquires either because of an inquisitive motive or of a dishonest heart; the former, compelled by a sincere desire to know and to pursue knowledge perpetuated by the answer provided, and the latter as a challenge to anyone declaring that a prior commitment had been made.  But before the question was asked, most of us already knew that the promise was never going to be kept; the combative nature of the context already manifested tells us already that the words previously spoken, the condition precedents not performed, remained as chasms of vacuity never to be told, less worthy of a promise and likely never intended to be fulfilled.

Fortunately, there are laws, statutes, regulations and written commitments which are “on the books”, and while the administrative process of a Federal Disability Retirement may take forever to complete, and the waiting period with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management may seem to take an eternity and a day, the positive side of the proverbial ledger is that it is a benefit accorded to all Federal and Postal employees under FERS or CSRS, and so long as you have the basic eligibility components in place (18 months of Federal Service for Federal and Postal employees under FERS; 5 years for CSRS employees, a dying and rare breed, to be sure); and filed while an active employee or within one (1) year of being separated from Federal Service; then, the Federal or Postal employee is free from that challenge of dishonest dissipation: “Where is it written?” In the Code of Federal Regulations, Statues and case-law precedents pertaining to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, of course.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Avoiding the anarchy of thoughtless acts

Life requires acting; successful living demands thoughtful acts.  Every good stage manager recognizes the signs; there are those who float through the script, with nary a cognitive engagement; others who involve themselves with an exhaustive turmoil of stipends unpaid; and still, those who think that talent alone will carry one through, despite the mediocrity which has surfaced unabashed, and where fingerprints left behind of tattered devastation betraying the lack of success.

Do we ever really “get over” our own ignorance or arrogance?  It is said that the two go hand-in-hand, like cousins who dress identically, or twins who hide their natural jealousies by inventing figments of unborn siblings.  It is because we need to compensate for our ignorance that our arrogant character traits surface; and by our arrogant personalities, we reveal the depths of our vacuity.

In history, there never has been a successful civilization based upon anarchical designs; despots and totalitarian conduits aside, such an institutionalization of disarray would never work.  We already have that in supposedly “organized” governments: bureaucracies of mammoth proportions that continue to thrive on indolence and disrepair.

In a state of anarchy, there isn’t even the semblance of competence; as everything is allowed to work without rules, principles or vicarious rationalizations for perpetual existence, so the inherent despair of personal destruction would prevail over any healthy ego or psyche which attempted to reassemble and reorganize.

But what of individual acts?  Does cruelty originate from an anarchy of thoughtless acts, or do they appear from a deliberative consciousness of knowing resolve?  Must institutions reflect the disarray of individual minds, or does a collective anarchy somehow transcend the singularity of thoughtful vacuity, and translate by pure osmosis a secularization of bifurcated consciousness?  Since when was cruelty excused because of lack of thought, when all throughout history it was precisely that principled requirement which mandated good manners and decorum of proper living?

We have come to a point in history where we have accepted a degraded standard, an institutionalization of mediocrity, and thus the faceless shame of inhumanity.  In the end, we will pay a price for such a state of concession, with a thousand cuts inflicted daily.

For the Federal and Postal employee who suffers 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 his or her positional duties, the daily harassment, hostile environment and constant bludgeoning of the fatigued workforce is but a microcosmic reflection of the greater macro-indicia of a world gone mad. One may take some consolation in the dismissive aside that, “It is nothing personal” – but that is indeed some minor conciliatory excuse.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management may not be the best option available, but it is that which attempts to preserve a scintilla of dignity, as a safeguard away from the daily imputation of cruelty designed, and a means to avoid the anarchy of thoughtless acts.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Government Employment: Ruins

We take extraordinary steps just to visit them; of the Parthenon, the Athenian Acropolis; of the Great Wall of China; of unspeaking relics where life once bustled, and still does but in a different way; of mere onlookers to a civilization once vibrant, but now twice removed — first, in the incremental abandonment of a society no longer relevant, and second, by the implicit concession that tourism establishes the death of the substantive content of any collection of structures.  Or of Aleppo, where modern-day devastation intersects with the ruins of old, and where actual suffering echoes throughout the ancient cascades where antiquity overwhelms the current screams of flesh and blood.

Why visit ruins when they are mere shadows of a former civilization unable to speak of its gradual decay and deterioration?  For, it is not the crumbling structures of haunting architectural tenacity which represents the truth behind the concealment of that which we visit to observe; it is the hidden narrative of human suffering which fails to utter the words in silence.  And what of lives untold?

What “ruins” have we failed to visit, right in one’s home, in one’s neighborhood, or just across the street?  Why be a world traveler, when the devastation imposed upon those who depended upon the promises given and assurances uttered mean nothing but some slices of memories of a yore-time of laughter and gaiety?  Is that what life is all about — of a good time here, a shared cackle of laughter in drunken states of unspoken ruination?

In the end, it matters not of crumbling structures and photographs taken of cavernous hollows in distant places where footwears matter; we trample great lengths to ooh and ahhh, and snap shots to send back to the origin of our trail of selfish devastation; but it is the ruins of human lives which touch upon the essence of a human soul, and not the marble and concrete which we gather to observe.  Flesh and blood rarely bespeak of decay and crumbling, but for the wrinkles of time which gather around the furrows of brows and corners of unsmiling lips.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who feel the devastation of a medical condition, such that the medical condition cuts short the career of intended purposes and teleological foundations of a future untold; the consequence of other actions, the worker sitting beside, or the supervisor behind the private door of an office uninviting, can exponentially increase the devastation already felt by the medical condition itself.

The tendency is to become a tourist of sorts, by standing about like so many detached onlookers — when, in fact, the solution is to become a part of the society itself.  Preparing, formulating and filing 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, takes you out of the realm of mere tourism and into the arena of actual living.

Visiting the ruins of another culture is one thing; allowing for the ruination of one’s own career, future and livelihood is quite another.  To be ruined; to visit a ruin; to allow for ruination; all such forms of linguistic allowances become stalwarts of reality unless you take the necessary steps to advance forward.  Preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application to be filed with OPM is the first step towards ensuring that one will not become another ruin to be photographed, but a living, vibrant entity who has escaped the devastation of an ahistorical context.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: The cadence of coherence

There is truth, then the ring of truth.  The former may extract a pound of flesh or a quart of blood from the reader, yet allow the subtle entrapment quietly releasing the cornered soul merely by being unpersuasive.  The latter, despite often lacking in some essential details, will nevertheless engulf the audience, whether intended or indirect and unaware, into a comatose purring of half-conscious slumber, where acceptance of an argument because of a danger of violating the pleasantry of the moment is more important than embracing the facts themselves.

That is, of course, what is ultimately “wrong” with the writing style of a diatribe; it is the seething, subterranean anger in the undercurrent of a volatile eruption like the bursting lava from an unconstrained volcano where civilizations perish and survivors flee with but the clothes on their backside, which fails the purposive teleology of a barrage of words.

The persuasive outlier must possess the heart of a musician, the humor of an invited conversationalist, and the soul of a philosopher; otherwise, the dinner audience may begin to yawn and request to excuse themselves for various reasons, including an early exit for want of company.

The truth is, truth itself is boring.  It needs sugar, spice and all that is nice; wrapped in paper which stands out, but refuses the ostentatious condiments of vulgarity in a universe surrounded by stellar vacuity.  Convincing truth, on the other hand, possesses a disposition of a rhythmic melody, orchestrated with precision by a master with a conductor’s baton not made of any particular wood, but where the waving and weaving flows in consonance with the confluency of nature, artifice and linguistic pablum.

In any effective narrative, there must always retain the cadence of coherence.  That is often the “trouble” with Federal Disability Retirement applicants who formulate his or her own narrative of persuasive concoctions; will the U.S. Office of Personnel Management drink of the vitriol seething beneath the surface of turmoil?  Will the obvious diatribe translate into a persuasive cadence of coherent ideations?

Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, have a dual whammy of obstacles to face:  They themselves must be the focus of the narrative; and, moreover, they themselves must present a voice of objectivity.  Both are immediately undermined when the medical condition itself is the very reason, rationale and underlying foundation for which the entire Federal Disability Retirement application must be prepared, formulated and forwarded to one’s Agency (if not yet separated, or separated from the Federal sector but not for more than 31 days) or directly to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Preparing the answers required on SF 3112A (Applicant’s Statement of Disability) requires a quiet, rhythmic cadence of coherence; to do so, the origin, source and inception of the narrative must emanate from a composite core made of materials tougher than metal, yet sensitive enough to touch upon that human yearning which defines the empathy of timeless angels.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire