OPM Medical Disability Pensions: The Life We Lead

The life we lead may not be the one we chose; or, more likely, the life we “now” choose to lead — if we even have a choice.  One might argue that we always have a choice; the only real question is:  Are we willing to pay the price for the choices we make?

Often, we fall into things.  Human beings are complex creatures; the person we were years ago rarely is identical to the “now” of that individual.  Perhaps that explains the divorce rate in this country; of commitments encompassing “till death do us part” are rarely embraced, anymore.

And the choices which are out there make for compounding effects when it comes to the life we lead.  Decades ago, society imposed greater structural restrictions:  School teachers who were found to possess any tinge of moral turpitude would be dismissed and disgraced; heads of companies who divorced were summarily terminated; and those thought to hold rather unconventional opinions were shunned and often isolated.  Is this a good thing?

The perfection of a median — a point “in between” the two ends of a spectrum of excesses, or often referred to as the Aristotelian view of a good life — is often the balance to be sought.  The life we lead is, too often, solidified by the youthful indiscretions of excesses embraced in youthful vigor; whereas, in later years, regret tends to soften our extravagant early years.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have come to a point in later life, where the Civil Service job which once required extreme energy, daily commitment and a stark challenge to even the healthiest of individuals, but now, in later life, medical conditions have reached a critical juncture where they are no longer compatible with continuation in that job — it is perhaps time to consider preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS.

Contact a FERS Medical Retirement expert, that is, a U.S.-licensed attorney who specializes in the practice area of Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider the life you lead and want to lead — now.

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: Always Within the Never

It is a phrase borrowed from the book, the Elegance of the Hedgehog.  The movie version follows the novel quite scrupulously, with the former utilizing certain visual applications (example — of Paloma using the video camera; the image of the death and resurrection of the goldfish, and other metaphorical tools more easily adapted to the visual medium of a movie) while the latter goes into greater detail on the background and conversations engaged, especially on Art, Music, Philosophy, etc.

Both are beautifully done in discussing the issues of class structure in France — of the value of education; how we treat one another based upon wealth and background; of what constitutes beauty; and the relevance of one life as opposed to another — of the always within the never.

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 “always” concerns the worth of the Federal or Postal employee whether you can do your job or not, and the “never” is the concept that, just because you are no longer able to perform your job anymore, it does not diminish the value of your worth to society.

Federal Disability Retirement is a benefit accorded to you when you signed up as a Federal or Postal employee.  It is a recognition that human “worth” is partly based upon your past contribution in this world, and that you still have much to contribute beyond the Federal or Postal sector.

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and assert yourself always within the never.

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 the USPS and other Federal Gov. Agencies: Loyalty in Our Time

As a member of The Band, Levon Helm was a fiercely loyal member who was extremely critical of his fellow musician, Robbie Robertson.  The issue which centered upon the bitter feud involved royalties (as all feuds throughout time immemorial involve money) — of who should receive it; what constitutes “writing” a song; who should get credit for it, etc.

There are many adages which our grandparents used to offer — of sayings beginning with, “There are two types of people in the world”, etc.  One such saying might begin with: “There are two types of people in the world — the Levon Helm type, and the Robbie Robertson type…”

The controversy involved the bifurcation of the following: How is a song written: by the origin of the idea, or by the end product involving a collaborative effort?  Levon Helm believed in the latter approach; Robbie Robertson, in the former.  In the end, what was considered as one of the greatest rock bands in the history of music — a group merely called, “The Band” — disintegrated into a bitter end because of a feud over money and loyalty.

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 question of loyalty in our time will test the Federal Agency and the Postal Service.

Should you inform them immediately about your intention to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits?  How will your past loyalty to your Federal Agency or the Postal Service be “repaid” when they find out that you are filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management?  Will the Federal Agency or the Postal Service act like Levon Helm — fiercely loyal — or like Robbie Robertson?

To protect yourself and learn the lesson of loyalty in our time, contact a disability attorney who specializes in OPM Disability 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.

 

Federal Worker Disability Retirement: Considering The Future

When considering the future, we look at the present and rely upon the past.  It takes an imaginative mind to see the future beyond our present circumstances.

That is often why a Federal or Postal employee who needs to file for OPM Disability Retirement benefits under FERS looks bleakly at the future: Suffering from a medical condition; Knowing that, presently, you cannot do your job; Assessing that your income will be reduced; Realizing that you are not the same person you were before the medical condition — these factors will be looked at in a negative way.

Yet, the future with a FERS Disability Retirement annuity allows for so much: Of focusing upon getting back your health; of being allowed to work in another job and making up to 80% of what your former Federal or Postal position currently pays; and while you may not be the same person as before, you have the opportunity to become a better you, adjusting to the health challenges before you, but without the stresses of trying to be as before.

Consult with an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, and consider seriously the future, bright and promising.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employment Medical Retirement Benefits: Answering

There are a wide-ranging set of rules when answering — whether to a question, a query or the need to rebut a determination of some sort.  Etiquette often plays a large part in social situations; or of common conventions and unspoken rules of interpersonal interactions.  Different situations call for tailored responses, and often we confuse one sphere of responsive need with another. “Do I owe an explanation” often depends upon the circumstances — the status between the query and the deposed; the relationship fostered; whether there would be consequences in failing to provide an answer, etc.  Then, of course, there is the issue of timeliness.

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, much of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is a matter of answering questions — questions posed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on Standard Forms 3107 and 3112.  How one answers the questions; what answers are formulated; when to file a response; where to file the response — they are all relevant in preparing an effective FERS Disability Retirement application.

Consult with a Federal Disability Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Laws and set the path of “answering” not only in the right way, but in an effective manner in preparing, formulating and filing a successful Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Jobs versus careers

We make a distinction between the two, do we not?  One merely “lands” a job, whereas we “pursue” a career, implying the arbitrary nature of the first and the delectable interest shown in the second.  Yet, the bifurcation of the two is never so stark as night and day, but can often be clouded in the grey of differences: Obviously, a “job” can be a career, and careers can take on many jobs in the upward advancement of one.

Thus, one can begin as a clerk, move into management, and ultimately become the President of a company; and while each job is distinguishable from the other, the entirety of the whole constitutes a “career” that one pursued.  Yet, we make the distinction especially when we are in “dead-end” jobs — those employment situations which disallow for advancement either in pay or in responsibilities (although, in some dead-end jobs, the responsibilities continue to expand without any increase in pay, which defines why it is a “dead-end” job because, in the end, you will end up dead by working too hard without a living wage).  And, while jobs in their totality and/or continuum of advancements may lead to a career, can a career become merely a job?

That question is rarely, if ever, asked, because careers are generally thought to be an elevated form of the lesser stature of “a job”, and as the higher standard cannot be subsumed or subjugated to the lower, it is normally not a valid consideration.  Yet, we talk in those terms, don’t we?  We hear statements like, “My career has stalled” or “His career has hit a glass ceiling”, or even, “Her career is going nowhere”.

Medical conditions, of course, can be a key element in the interference of a “career”, and in some sense, of transforming a career into a mere job.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of his or her positional duties, it may be time to recognize that one’s “career” has become a “job” precisely because of the medical condition.

The medical condition is the factor and element which has “stalled” one’s career, and it is time to then prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Consult with an experienced Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law in order to maneuver through the complex bureaucratic maze.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Federal Employee Disability Lawyer

 

OPM Retirement for Mental or Physical Incapacity: Responsibility

What is it about the ascription of such a word, that there can be a direct correlation or, if taken in a different context, some mere connection but no causality?  We can say of a person, “He is responsible for X”, and yet never have directly encountered X or (if a person) never even have met X.

Thus of monsters and thugs throughout history, for instance, we might say that “Stalin was responsible for 20 million deaths, at least,” or that Mao was “responsible” for a 100 million peasants dying during the late 50s; or, of course, of ascribing to Hitler the countless millions; and, so that we don’t leave out other “responsible” monsters of history, of Pol Pot, Idi Amin and many others besides, though we cannot link a causality that would pass Hume’s skeptical test of anything more than events following one upon another, we nevertheless accept that all such political figures were “responsible” for the deaths of millions.

What is the criteria in coming to such a conclusion?  Is it a negative proposition — that if X had the power or position to prevent such events from occurring, then Responsibility-Y can be ascribed?  Or must it be a positive declaration: If X engaged in Acts A, B and C, then Responsibility-Y can be attributable to Individual-W; and further, if only Acts A & B, but not C, then less so; and if only Act A, but not B & C, even less so?

“Responsibility”, of course, is a malleable and transitive concept; it can change with the contextual winds of opinion, historical perspective and a cultural shift of viewpoints.  Look at how we approach our Founding Fathers — of responsibility for the slave issue in the United States, but somehow excusing each if (A) any one of them willed that they would be freed upon their deaths, (B) that one was “personally” against the issue but for economic, practical reasons were “forced” to go along or (C) they treated them “kindly” and “responsibly” (here, we have a double-meaning of the term, for such an individual was both “responsible” as well as being ascribed the “responsibility” of being a slave owner).

Or, look at the manner in which America treated Native Americans — of a genocidal history no less cruel than Mao’s starvation of the peasantry; and yet, because of such grand concepts as “manifest destiny” and the depiction of an entire populace as “uncivilized”, we can avert “responsibility” by distancing the causal agents; and the greater distance between the agents, the less we ascribe responsibility.

On a lesser scale, what about work?  If work suffers and there is no reason for it but laziness and lack of attention, we ascribe “responsibility”.  But what if a medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties — is that Federal or Postal employee “responsible”?

The short answer is a “no” — and that is recognized by “the Law”, in statutes, regulations and case-laws cumulatively aggregated under the conceptual aegis of “Federal Disability Retirement Law”.  It is precisely because society recognizes that a medical condition itself — and not the individual — is directly responsible for one’s inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, that Federal disability retirement exists as a benefit to pursue.

But it cannot be accessed until and unless there is an affirmative step taken by the Federal or Postal employee, by preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.  That is where “responsibility” comes into play as a direct causal link — of initiating the steps and actually filing.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Today (pause), and Tomorrow

The parenthetical insertion creates a “real-time” interlude, and the addendum of the grammatical mandate, the unnecessary comma, extends the strained quietude of wanting to engage the sequential utterance.  There is the reality of “now”, which we occupy, fill and exist within, and the expectation of a tomorrow which never exists as a wholeness contained within a specified time period, but merely in anticipated form within the imagination of our cognitive universe.  To this, we can always add “yesterday”, as well, but that is merely of memories passed, reflected in the neurocognitive cellars of stored images.

It is of today and tomorrow which matters for the survival of a species, with yesterday reserved for learned experiences allowing for avoidance of mistakes in order to enhance one’s probability for remaining today and advancing into tomorrow.

Of yesterday, there is nothing that we can do, other than to learn from it and squeeze out the corners of lessons presented.

Of today, there are the problems known, the concerns we have to deal with and the stresses we are forced to tolerate.

And of tomorrow, we have to place into bifurcated boxes of manageable sizes, lest the overwhelming contents spill over to make us all go mad.

For, without the ability and capacity to filter, store and set aside, the extent of problems encountered, stresses envisioned or the troubles tormenting, would be of such quantitative overload as to leave us paralyzed daily.  Of chores left undone, relationships needing tethering, obligations still remaining and work much wanting; where will it all end except in the tombstones of unfinished business?

We are thus stuck in the rut of negation; some, in memories reflected over time enhancing in magnitude and perfection as duration allows for the fissures, wrinkles and ugliness of that once “today” to disappear, such that the retrospective life becomes the paradigm of lost souls.  Or, of those tomorrows yet to come, where we ruminate over troubles that have not yet occurred but we imagine them to become, and crisis that have yet to rear its horrific head, or so the expectations grounded in fear and loathing would have us believe.  Of the before and after, we spend so much time worrying about, and lose sight of the ambiance of today.

Today is what matters; today is the time to plan for tomorrow; today is the moment of applying principles failed by yesterday’s lack of discernment.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the focus upon “today” is the parachute that will catch the wind stream for tomorrow’s security. And of the past?  Let it remain with memories foretold of positive thoughts and lessons learned for tomorrow, and not of haunting nightmares forgotten but for awakenings in the middle of the night.

Prepare well a Federal Disability Retirement application, and formulate it effectively, and file it today – not tomorrow, and certainly do not ruminate upon yesterday’s failings, as that has already passed without fruition of a future left unseen.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Overload

The comparative life is an illusion of sorts; Plato’s theme throughout is established every day, as appearances hide the reality beneath, and the allegory of the Cave – where shadows constitute the seeming truth and the truth appears as hidden seeming – is merely an archaic anachronism that has been vanquished, if merely because no one gives much weight to dead philosophers and nobody has the time for reflection upon questions that cannot provide answers instantaneously, as Google and High Speed Internet have allowed us to become accustomed.

Looking about on any street corner, or walking among the populace at large, one would believe that everyone around is able to handle the daily stresses of modernity, and that overload – whether of information, activities, responsibilities, financial, ethical, family, commitments, work issues, health concerns, etc. – are all performed, accomplished, completed and fulfilled with but a yawn.  Somehow, we all know it not to be the case.

Statistically, a great number of us suffer from anxiety, depression, intolerance to any level of stresses, with physical manifestations and somatic consequences impacting; and how many among the seemingly “normal” crowd require daily intakes of pharmacological assistance by ingestion with serious side effects to boot, but like the three towers which – when viewed from a certain perspective of alignment, appears as a singular entity – presents one sense-impression and then another when movement of the perceiver alters the vantage point, we persist upon a given viewpoint despite knowledge to the contrary.

Sensory overload is a daily problem, a persistent concern and a philosophical conundrum, precisely because we have given up the opportunity for reflection, repose and reconciliation with life’s major questions.  No, philosophy was never meant for the masses – the Socratic dialectic made that clear; but the questions posed were meant to always and perennially be asked, such that each generation would attempt to make heads or tails of life’s serious concerns.

Instead, we have been told that there are no such questions to be answered; that mythology died at about the same time Socrates took his mandated hemlock, and all information is good, available and open to the public through Google, and we can all be happy with the lot of life given to us.  Yet, the overload we experience on a daily basis, somehow doesn’t quite fit that paradigm.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who feel the burden of overload – of having to “deal” with workplace harassment; of contending with the debilitating medical conditions; of deteriorating health and the impact upon one’s ability and capacity to continue in the chosen job in the Federal or Postal sector – it may be time to consider 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, if the Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, you may be eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

It is a long and arduous bureaucratic process that can take many stages in order to obtain, but the alternative may be of that appearance which defies the evidence of reality – like the Platonic Forms that represent the hidden truth behind the appearance of things presented – for, to remain without doing anything is to either continue to deteriorate in progressive debilitation of health, or to try and withstand the overload of life’s misgivings in a job which you can no longer do, or barely do, until the day comes when increasing pressure from the Federal agency or the Postal Service ends in a termination letter; and, that, too would be an overload beyond the ability to handle.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Means to an end

There is a difference, with a real distinction, between utilizing a process as a means to an end, as opposed to using people for the same purpose.  Such a concept should be a “given” – that logical posit which is unquestionably true, without the likelihood of being controverted, and generally accepted as a foundational principle in a caring society and community.  Yet, modernity has contravened such a belief, and truth and falsity have become relative concepts on the pendulum of linguistic elasticity where the spectrum of facts, beliefs and opinions have become an amalgamation of conflated confusions.

Have we lost the capacity to recognize and identify distinctions that are substantively different because of their self-evident meaning and relevance?  Do we no longer teach logic – whether of the fundamental Aristotelian syllogism, or the greater complexity by extension as delineated in Russell’s three-volume magnum opus, Principia Mathematica – such that we can no longer argue for even the basics when confronted by once-accepted paradigms that Kantian categorical imperatives allegedly put to rest forever and a day?

Yet, that final proverbial “day” has now passed, purportedly, and such statements have become mere fodder for dismissive philosophical trash-heaps characterized by “Mereology” and other third-rate, Oprah-like condescension of forgeries masking as genuine belief systems.

Sartre and Camus presented their cases; the former, through a meandering philosophical treatise some would characterize as “Heidegger-Lite” (the comparison can be made superficially on the titles alone – of “Being and Time” as opposed to “Being and Nothingness”) and where his plays allowed for greater coherence than any of his “serious” attempts, while the latter conveyed the angst of human repugnance to becoming “objectified” through novels depicting alienation and the dilemma of human value in the very activity of defiance and rebellion.

Man, we are told, should always be treated as an end in and of himself, and never as a means.  Yet, in this mechanized, electronic-ized, technologized society, where the Smartphone is King and the tactile engagement with one another is merely an afterthought, we have to recognize that such inane beliefs are now mere archaic formulations of former times, previous generations and outdated constructs no longer applicable.  The Angst of Existentialism has come full circle; that which we scoffed at because it originated from Continental Europe is no longer a Sisyphean mythology, but a reality that now consumes.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who feel the weight and burden of a medical condition, being treated as a means to an end becomes part of the process.

Past accolades of dedication and loyalty fail to leave a trail of concomitant interest and empathy of warmth; you find out quickly that others don’t give a hoot about distinguishing between “means” and “ends”; but in the end, it is precisely the means by which you end up treating a fellow human being, and the very filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application should in and of itself warrant treatment of being an “end”, and not a “means” – but such self-evident principles appear to no longer be the accepted normative value within a society that cries tears for the Oprah show, but not for the real human experiences of the person in your own office, sitting in front of you, a foot away, real, not imagined, not a picture on Facebook, but a person of real flesh and blood.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire