FERS Medical Retirement: Story Told Simply

Modern writers have been corrupted by the desire to be published in The New Yorker.  Similarly, the Iowa Writers’ Workshop and similar venues have destroyed the short story.  Today, modern short story writers are technically infallible; they follow an impeccable template of “How a Short Story Should be Written” — but the gimmicks, the registered competence, the learned cadence and skillfully crafted creativity — fail to produce the brilliance of the art.  We are killing the short story by pure, unadulterated competence.

Read one short story by William Trevor.  Question: Did he learn how to write by attending the Iowa Writers’ Workshop?  Did Hemingway produce The Old Man and the Sea by taking a class on “How to Write?”  The technical competence, the educated writer, the factory production of good writing — it all fails to tell the story told simply.  Perhaps the fault lies not only owing to the plenitude of college courses, all somewhat entitled, “Creative Writing”, but to the fact that religion has lost its hold upon the culture.

Let me explain:  No, this is not to argue that “religion”, per se, directly contributed to good writing.  Rather, it is to argue: A close inspection of every good story always involves the struggle between good and evil; of a tension of hubris following upon self-destruction; of the pull between one’s conscience and the struggle to avoid sin.  Yet, how can there be any tension left, when nothing is shameful, everything is permitted (Dostoevsky’s shadow?), and there is nothing left but shame’s skeletal outlines?

All that would be left is merely a story told simply, but without a soul to its name?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Workers who struggle with a medical condition such that the medical condition impacts one’s ability and capacity to perform all of the essential elements of one’s positional requirements with the Federal Government, a story told simply is crucial to the successful filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  Too much information; overemphasis upon one’s history; failure to capture the soul of the “story” — these are all errors which can defeat a FERS Disability Retirement application with the Office of Personnel Management.

Contact a FERS Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and let the story be told simply, but effectively.

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 Employee Disability Retirement: Work Left Undone

That is why gardening and other similar endeavors help to calm the human mind; for, like the Zen of human existence, projects which have a starting point and end with results that can be observed with gratifying exclamations — like a rock garden finished and allowed to visibly appreciate — is a point in life which has been “done”.

Most of life’s work is that which is left undone — the son or daughter who left home too early; projects of which you participate in only a portion of; things you wanted to say but never had a chance to; dreams dreamed of but left as mere vestiges of feeble attempts left unfinished; and so we carry on with out lives, always with a detritus of abandoned work left undone.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have come to a point in their medical conditions where there now exists an incompatibility between work and health, it may indeed be difficult to leave the work behind — work left undone.  But there is still the future to consider: of work which still can be done; of prioritizing the primary work left undone — your health.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, and consider that the Federal work left undone can always be picked up by someone else, whereas your health cannot.

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.

 

Attorney Representation for Denied OPM Disability Claims: The Appearance of Substance

It is like a Jonathan Franzen novel (apologies to those who are fans of his), as opposed to a Hemingway masterpiece (is the bias too obvious by merely connecting “novel” to the first writer as opposed to “masterpiece” to the second?).  The fluff is fairly obvious.  Pages after pages of meandering nothingness, wondering where the story is going, what the plot is, why it is that one is trying to make one’s way through a long and meaningless road?

The appearance of substance is always a problem.  How does one gauge it?  It is like the old adage of throwing away good money after bad — after a long investment of time in trying to read it, you hate to give up before you get to the end.

OPM denials in a FERS Disability Retirement case often “feels” like that — of long extrapolated regurgitations from medical records, then at the end, a mere statement: “It has not been shown that you suffer from a medical condition which prevents you from performing the essential elements of your position”.

So, either one of two things is going on:  Either the previously-quoted extrapolations self-evidently speak form themselves, or the OPM Medical Specialist simply wants an appearance of substance without having to explain or discuss the relevance of the extrapolated paragraphs.  Volume is not the same as substance; just compare a balloon as opposed to a boulder sitting atop a mountain in Colorado.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have received a denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for his or her Federal Disability Retirement application, contact an OPM Medical Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and consider that the appearance of substance is no substitute for a substantive legal rebuttal.

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 and Postal Worker Medical Retirement: The Retreat of Solace

Everyone, without exception, must find that slice of heaven — that retreat of solace.  Whether it is found in reading; in a hobby; a dog to cuddle with; children, for a time, at least; kite flying; stamp collection; even video games????

Life is difficult.  As Hobbes would put it, the “life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short…”.  Has it changed much?  Certainly, some progress has been made.

Reading history, especially about the frontier days in late 18th Century and early 19th Century America — of the constant warring, torture and killings; yet, despite a more “civilized” world (minus Afghanistan and Chicago), life is hard and the retreat of solace is an important element to discover, preserve and protect.

Some find it merely in the lost world of fiction and the novel; others, in more physical activities — a friendly pick-up game of basketball; a weekend round of golf; a solitary walk in the woods.  Whether refreshing one’s insular universe by means of physical exercise of the body, or allowing for a respite of that private world escaping into a fantasy world, the means of such change of scenery depends upon the personality of the individual.

What happens when a medical condition interrupts that retreat of solace?  The insidiousness of chronic pain or constant anxiety makes for the retreat of solace to become untenable, precisely because a temporary escape from this hard reality called “living” is no longer possible.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits allows for the Federal or Postal worker to attain a future security in order to regain the retreat of solace.  Contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of reasserting the lost ground of the retreat of solace.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

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

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement Representation: Forgotten

Is that the basis of our fears?  Does the concept of immortality haunt us precisely because we fear extinguishment, erasure, censure and being forgotten within a moment’s notice beyond the short mention in a local paper’s obituary?  Is that not, instead, the normal course of events — the way in which this non-teleological universe meant it to be — of returning to dust from whence we came, and become regenerated through the soil that embraces our ashes and decomposed flesh so that the genetic materials become recycled by the very foods we digest?

Mortality is that which men fear; becoming immortal is the goal of many; but being forgotten is the fear realized in the lives of most.  What difference, in the end, does it make?

We project an image through the creative imagination of our own psyche, and create images of a time beyond our own demise — of a weeping widow (or widower); children speaking in hushed tones of a person who was but is no longer around; and in our inkling of what it will be like, we posit our own consciousness by being present in a room that acknowledges our own absence.  Is that what sweet revenge is like — of imagining all sorts of regrets by those who shunned us, humiliated and ignored us when we were in their presence in life?

To be forgotten is to regret our own insignificance, and to constantly be haunted by one’s own irrelevance.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the medical condition begins to prevent one’s ability and capacity to perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the issue of being forgotten becomes a reality quite quickly and soon in the process of deteriorating health and use of sick leave or going on FMLA.

For, Federal agencies and the Postal Service are quite adept at forgetting — forgetting the years of loyalty shown by the Federal or Postal employee; forgetting the years of service, unpaid overtime and those “extra” hours put in but left uncompensated but for unrealized hopes of future considerations that never come about; forgetting the contributions of yesterday because today and tomorrow are all that matters to the Federal agency or Postal Service; and it is when the word “forgetting” in the present participle transforms into the past participle of “forgotten” that we finally come to realize that health is of greater importance than loyalty; and that is when the recognition that preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, to be filed through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is the best defense against a bureaucracy that has easily forgotten the essence of human worth and dignity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Attorney Representation for OPM Disability Claims: Equilibrium of life

What is the importance of maintaining one’s equilibrium of life?  The concept, of course, implies a “balance” of sorts, where there is an analogy of images that includes an orderly sequence, a scale that is suspended in the middle and not tilted to one side or the other, and a sense of calm and peace that pervades.  To be “out of kilter” is to have a loss of equilibrium; and somehow to embrace extremes is to manifest a loss of control.

We all lose our equilibrium of life, whether daily, weekly or in more tandem steps of ordinary outcomes.  Sometimes, it is something that someone said at work or just as you leave your house that “throws you off” and gets you into a “bad mood” and out of sorts; or, other times, it is some reminder that triggers something from one’s past, and places one in a foul mood for days on end.

The cottage industry of self-help motivations is alive and well; of acupuncture, therapy, the gym, corporate motivational speakers, healthy diets, unhealthy diets, quiet meditation, protracted yoga, pills for medications, sounder sleep cycles, changing one’s language to reflect a “journey” of sorts, religious fervor, causes to die for, therapy pets, guard dogs, and just plain dogs that come and give you unconditional love…these, and many more, allow for one’s equilibrium of life.

Whether we pay for it daily, weekly, monthly or yearly; whether the money is well-spent or ill-conceived; the goal is always, however you want to characterize it and in whatever manner the language game is cited, the result that is sought is all the same: equilibrium of life.

Then, hopefully, if even then, on one’s deathbed, one can shrug one’s shoulder as one is hooked up to complex life-support systems, and declare to one’s loved ones: “The key to the universe in order to attain the equilibrium of life is…” and gasp out one’s breath, not having had the life left to complete the sentence, and leaving loved one’s and those trying to listen in on the pearls of wisdom otherwise untold, and leaving everyone else out in the proverbial cold.

Perhaps there is a “key” to life that results in one’s equilibrium of life; or, not.

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 equilibrium of life is often out of sorts, out of kilter and off-balance, precisely because one cannot focus exclusively upon one’s health and maintenance of life’s blessings.

Filing 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, may not be the “key to the universe”, but it is at least an initial, if small, step towards regaining the equilibrium of life.  And that, however small and miniscule an achievement, is at least a first step towards putting the key to life’s problems on layaway and looking with anticipation towards the proverbial light at the end of a tunnel.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: A breach of instinct

What if? that fragile balance that exists in nature, seen when squirrels scrounge about in search of roots and nuts, moving within the tranquil space besides cardinals, woodpeckers, rabbits and robins abounding when, suddenly, birds attack the rabbits and squirrels, and in turn, the rabbits and squirrels chase one another and attempt to catch and devour the birds, and the mayhem that follows goes on for an unceasing eternity.

Of course, such a scene is not “nature” in its nakedness, but a scene from a suburban backyard, whereas in the true “state of nature”, in the distant woodlands not easily traversed by the human eye (are there such places, anymore?), such scenes of predatory confrontation held by a tentative and tacit agreement of abeyance may occur daily. Or, in those National Geographic scenes, where there is a quietude of implied ceasefire in birds standing atop the backs of hippos and rhinos pecking away calmly at whatever delectable insects abound, and their sturdy underlings happily go about their business – what if, suddenly, the hippo or rhino turns around and with a swift lunge of its massive neck, grabs that bird and devours it whole?

Was there a breach of an implied or tacit agreement, a breach of instinct, or both? When such “agreements” develop within a slow, steady and evolutionary process, over a period of time imperceptible but for the peace and tranquility it creates, and everyone is perfectly content with the circumstances ensconced by tradition and the state of current affairs, what leads to the breach, what are the consequences and is there blame to be spread about?

What if a rogue animal one day just declares to itself, “The hell with this; I was never a party to this agreement, and so I shall do as I please” – what then? Is it not true that no true “breach” has been committed, as the parties were never official signatories to the agreement, explicit, implicit, tacit or otherwise? Who determines that there ever existed such an agreement, anyway, and where is it written in the “rules of order” that certain sequence of decorum must be followed?

That is, of course, the crux of the matter; for, what is the retort of those who have no ethical or moral compass, but to sneer with the declarative, “Show me where it is written!”

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are preparing to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits because of a medical condition that prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, the presumption is that tacit or implied standards of conduct is often tested at the outset, both by the Federal agency or Postal Service, and even by OPM.

You rely upon the rules, but the Agency may completely ignore them. If you are a Postal employee, this is to be expected.

Yes, there are laws, but so long as silence governs the assertion of rights denied, a breach of instinct becomes the rule of law and the depiction by Locke and Rousseau of that “State of Nature” devolving into a “State of War” can become a contentious state of affairs unless, in the very process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, the Federal or Postal Disability Retirement applicant asserts the legal precedents controlling and constraining the fragile balance that restrains a breach of instinct.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employees Disability Retirement Benefits: Weather and the Prognosis

Prognostication of weather, beyond a day (or sometimes a couple of hours) can be treacherous and self-defeating.  With enhanced computer networks which reevaluate information as it is fed with information concerning patterns of predictability, shifting atmospheric changes and spectrums of barometric alterations; cumulatively, a pie in the face is preferable despite advanced technologies allowing for respectable predictability.

Similarly, the medical field is expected to provide predictions of future events and as-yet unforeseen consequences.  Because medicine is considered a “science”, the level of accuracy is required beyond mere witch’s brew, or the spell of waved wand cast upon an unsuspecting eye.  Thus do doctors engage in percentages and probabilities; of mortality, X-percentage, give or take a few months, based upon studies delineated in some obscure journal presumably respected and hidden in the esoteric towers of ivory bastions.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the requirement for Federal and Postal employees includes information that the medical condition will last a minimum of 12 months (from the date of filing for Federal Disability Retirement).  Persistent and prevalent misinterpretation of this requirement pervades; one often hears the belief that the Federal or Postal employee must be away from work, or otherwise incapacitated, for that period of 12 months before filing.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The requirement is merely one which denotes a prognosis or prediction, no more than what the medical field can predict and what the weather can portend.  It merely means that a Federal or Postal employee who suffers 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 positional duties, will be so prevented and impacted for a minimum of 12 months.

Any doctor worth his or her salt can provide a prognosis of how long the medical condition will last, and whether or not such a prognosis is as accurate as the 10-day forecast promulgated by weather entities is often irrelevant.  For, in the end, the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from the medical condition and who needs to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, knows in his or her “heart of hearts” how long the medical condition will last, whether it is for a day or a season, or a lifetime of chronicity requiring longterm care and treatment.

As one’s own body, mind and soul rarely mistakes the shifting changes of life, so the weather and prognosis of one’s own health can be established through the experience of pain, agony, and the pounding of deterioration perpetrated upon the vulnerability of a mortal being.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Levels of Argumentation in OPM Disability Retirement

In a perfect universe, logic should prevail and the superior argument would be identified, recognized and accepted.  In a less-than-perfect universe (the state in which we unfortunately find ourselves), pragmatic factors involving power, authority, competency and non-substantive, peripheral issues must always be considered, and incorporated accordingly.  In the “unofficial rules” of argumentative methodology, three elements must be present:  (A) The ability and capacity to recognize a superior argument, (B) the willingness to concede one’s own inferiority of the proffer, and (C) acceptance of one in replacement of the other, which is to admit and submit.

In modernity, however, loudness and persistence, even without a basis in systematic logic, will often prevail, and one need not accede to a different position so long as ownership of the microphone or loudspeaker is never contested.  Which brings us to the pragmatic realities of the Federal Disability Retirement application, and the denials issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  First, it is important to recognize that all denials of Federal Disability Retirement applications by OPM “sound like” they are based upon “the law”.  They are meant to appear that way.  But are they?  If read too carefully, the internal inconsistencies, the lack of logic, and the repetitive nature of declarative conclusions without any supporting methodological argumentation will be quite evident.

How should one approach and rebut such a decision?  Does each and every point brought out by the “administrative specialist” need to be addressed, or just the “main points“?  Should the rebuttal arguments form the basis of the step-following the Reconsideration Stage of the process of attempting to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits — the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board?  Are there any repercussions for not addressing each of the “points” delineated in a denial by OPM?

These, and many other questions, should be addressed by a Federal lawyer who is experienced in handling OPM Medical Retirement applications through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  For, as some Federal or Postal employees attempt to begin the process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits without the aid, guidance, counsel and assistance of an OPM Disability attorney, when a denial of the Initial Stage is received from OPM, more extensive analysis and “corrective” efforts may be required.

And those three elements of argumentative methodologies discussed herein, are they relevant to the process?  Perhaps.  But OPM is a powerful and large bureaucracy which holds the future security of Federal and Postal employees in their hands, and a denial by OPM must be taken seriously, both in substantive form and qualitative content.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire