Federal Disability Retirement: Value & Worth

The two are often intertwined; what is of value is considered something of worth, and that which has an ascribed worth, is viewed as a thing of value.  If an objective, marketplace standard is applied, then the value of X may be disconnected from the worth of X; for, while X may retain little or no monetary value, the worth of the object to an individual may still endure (for sentimental reasons, emotional attachment, etc.).

Where human beings are considered, however, exceptions as to the inextricable conceptual intermingling of value and worth must prevail; but there again, the value of a person’s services in a specific industry may have an objective criteria upon which to base one’s worth.  Damaged goods devalue the marketplace price of commodities, and a similar ascription of worthiness is often viewed when an individual becomes less productive in the workplace.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, this very concept of marketplace devaluation is both familiar and starkly personal.  Whether an objective value of marketplace worth can truly be ascertained when describing human contribution, is a debate for ivory-tower pundits of a philosophical bent; in the real world of workplace harassment, supervisors who are egomaniacs and self-centered forces of disruption, and where fiefdoms of power stations are mere playgrounds for toying with the weak, the issue of what to do when one’s level of productivity becomes clearly manifested as a result of a medical condition, is one which must be approached with a pragmatism of limited choices.

Federal Disability Retirement is an option available for all Federal and Postal employees who have a minimum of 18 months of Federal Service under FERS (and 5 years under CSRS), and allows for the Federal and Postal employee to retain one’s health insurance and leave the Federal workforce with an annuity for one’s future security.  Federal Disability Retirement benefits are obtained by filing a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and must meet the preponderance of the evidence test.

Whether value and worth are conceptual constructs which have distinctive meanings may merely be of academic interest; but it is always the case that the value and worth of one’s future security is an interest of pragmatic significance to all U.S. Government employees and Postal workers, and which must be fought for in order to secure a sure footing in this world of uncaring inhumanity.

Sincerely

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: Explanations

Much of what constitutes a “proper” and “complete” Federal Disability Retirement application from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, is discretionary in nature, and based upon experience in what has worked in the past, and what presently works.  

The law itself is never constant, precisely because the individual case-workers at the Office of Personnel Management are systematically replaced.  There are certain case-workers who tend to approach each Federal Disability Retirement application from a particularly narrow perspective, and view each case through that specific set of lens.  But for the individual Federal or Postal employee who has prepared, formulated and filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, he or she would never recognize any pattern of behavior from a case-worker at the Office of Personnel Management, precisely because this would be the singular, isolated event of encountering a particular case worker at OPM.  

One problem which Federal and Postal applicants for Federal Disability Retirement benefits have, is a tendency to over-explain a particular situation or issue.  Explanations are meant to be given for one central purpose — to clarify.  If an explanation further complicates and muddles an issue, then the explanation has failed.  Or, conversely, if the explanation brings up more questions than answers, then further explanations will not normally satisfy the OPM Case Worker.  Explaining an X should be condensed into simple components of y and z; otherwise, if an explanation further complicates the issue, perhaps it should be left alone until and unless there is a question which arises from the issue itself.  

Sometimes, discretion requires one to “let sleeping dogs alone”.  Don’t complicate an issue by over-explaining; better yet, keep it simple, and not offer an explanation unless called for.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire