FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: Good to be Wrong

Every Federal Disability Retirement application contains some problems.  The ones which don’t — and they are few and far between — are what some call that rare “slam dunk case”.  But when it is characterized as such, the honest attorney — and the undersigned author of this blog considers himself such — simply tells the caller:  “Gather your medical records; fill out the forms and submit the packet; you don’t need a lawyer.”

All other type of cases have inherent problems, which comes with the territory.  For, when you deal with an agency which neither applies the law, nor is unbiased in its review and evaluation of each case; and, where the Agency believes that the money it is saving is tantamount to a protection of the evaluator’s personal bank account — well, you know and can guess what happens.

As every case is problematic, so every case has to be fought for.  A lifetime Federal Annuity (well, somewhat, as it is actually only until age 62, and then the Federal Disability Annuity is recalculated based upon the total number of years of service, including the time spent on FERS Disability Retirement) is not something that is easily given up by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management or the Federal Government; as such, it must be fought for.

This FERS Disability Attorney — the author of this blog — fights on behalf of his clients throughout all 3 stages of the process.  Other firms will often charge for each stage separately, or only for the first 2 stages, then abandons the client after that.

In having represented many, many clients over many years, one gets a “sense” of whether a Federal Disability Retirement case will be approved at the First Stage of the process, or whether there will be a “fight” and it will take either the Reconsideration Stage or the MSPB before a “win” is acquired.  Yet, there have been many, many cases when this attorney has also been wrong about this alleged “Sixth Sense” on any given case, and where OPM approved the case at the First Stage, even when the case is not overwhelming strong.

In such cases, it is good to be wrong.

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.

 

OPM Disability Attorney Help: The Paralysis of Indecision

There is, on the one hand, an approach of charging forth with a decision; on the other, a more contemplative manner of considering the options, letting various arguments be heard, then taking into account the pros and cons and coming to a deliberative conclusion and decision.

Such differing approaches often reflect the personality of the decision-maker; and, of course, between the two extremes on a spectrum of decision-making approaches, there are various “middle-ground” ways.

One often hears about the need for “decisive” action, where such an approach is often viewed as more effective and enveloped with great confidence.  Military responses are often characterized by the “charge forth” approach, whereas political expediency is too often reflected in the long and tiresome “consideration of all sides” approach.

In the end, whether one takes a lengthy, deliberative approach in making a decision, or immediately issues a definitive command to perform a deed, it is the paralysis of indecision which fails to abide.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service 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, the paralysis of indecision often comes about because of the hope for recovery of one’s health.

And that is often a good thing.  Hope springs eternal, but when the reality of one’s medical condition becomes chronic and never-ending, the paralysis of indecision merely exacerbates and worsens.

Contact a disability attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and do not allow the paralysis of indecision to keep you stuck in the quicksand of your medical condition.

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: The Perfect Day

For those with a literary bent, the natural inclination is to complete the title with, “for banana fish” — the erstwhile J.D. Salinger short story.  For the rest of us, it may be defined in other ways, different manners and varying definitions: Perhaps it is a day where one’s favorite football team wins; or, a quiet day of reading beside the fireplace, where snow drifts slowly upon the world outside, but not so much as to need shoveling or snow blowing, just enough to provide a picturesque scenery of calm and repose.

Or, perhaps it is one of negation: No work; no present worries; no children clamoring for attention; no arguments; no in-laws visiting without invitation.  Different definitions depend upon different perspectives of differentiated debacles; for some, “perfection” is what we will settle for less than the official dictionary definition; for others, the high standards we demand do not allow for anything less than.  If one of positive accomplishment, the taskmaster is never satisfied; but if it is based upon mere negation, then we may accept something less.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, the perfect day may be just an ordinary one — where one’s medical conditions are temporarily tolerable.  But such a standard cannot last forever, and yet one can hope that — with the worry of work behind you, the concern for the future still before you — if a Federal Disability Retirement annuity can be obtained, at least the stress of work can be set aside so that you can focus upon regaining your health.

Consult with an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and consider the perfect day that may yet be achievable: Of a day where your health may be somewhat restored, perhaps not even reaching a level of perfection but merely of acceptability.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Employee Disability Retirement: Sequential Arrangement

If an individual was about to move into a home or an apartment, but the place needed a fresh coat of paint, would you advise that person to move all of his or her furniture into the place first, then paint the place — or first paint the place, then move in?

The question seems rather redundantly unnecessary, and the answer rather redundantly obvious; but, then, if one doesn’t think about the sequential arrangement of tasks to be accomplished, or even that the person in question simply has had no experience in such matters, perhaps the obvious must be pointed out for its logical consequences.  Clearly, it would make things easier to paint an empty premises as opposed to having the place cluttered with furniture and knick-knacks, exposing everything to paint droppings and just to even consider the logistical nightmare of trying to paint around a cluttered apartment or home full of furniture, etc.

Sequential arrangement is important in most matters — which should be done first; what needs to be accomplished as a preface to the step following, etc.

For Federal and Postal employees contemplating Federal Disability Retirement as an option to pursue, the fact that the forms presented — both the Standard Form 3107 series as well as the SF 3112 series — come in a sequence does NOT mean that you should complete them in the sequence arranged by the Federal Government.  Sequence is important because the information you provide depends upon the previous information you have gathered, and the sequence of such information is important and relevant in preventing any developing inconsistencies.  Just because SF 3107 and SF 3112 come in a neat and tidy packet arranged in a sequential manner does not mean that the sequential arrangement should be followed.

Consult with a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and discuss the sequential arrangement of steps to follow that will benefit your particular case, and not the case that can be made against you by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS Disability Retirement Lawyer

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: The Cadence of Life

We all “have” one, or at least sense it; and when we do not, it means that the tune to which we march is so coordinated that we don’t even realize that there is one; for, it is only when the song is “out of tune” or the marching footsteps are out of sync that it becomes apparent that the cadence of life is left askew.

There are days when the cadence of life is so perfectly attuned that we need not pause to consider it; then, there are other days when everything is out of tune — when the feet trip over one another, the dexterity of hands become all thumbs and nothing seems to work and the cadence of life has been disrupted.  Most days are somewhere in between upon the spectrum of daily living — of being in tune most of the time but with disruptions and pauses; “pregnant pauses”, at that, which make for embarrassment and disjointed agonies of trepidation and concern.

We say things like, “I feel out-of-sorts” or perhaps a slight cold or “bug” has infected us; but whatever the cause, we know that we must get back into the step of things and march along with the rest of the crowd, lest the band leave us and the quietude of isolation engulfs us with a fear of loneliness.

Medical conditions — whether of illness or injury — can likewise disrupt the cadence of life, and 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, filing for FERS Disability Retirement benefits — to be ultimately submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — is one step towards regaining that step to bring yourself in cadence with the cadence of life once lost, and now to be found.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Benefits under FERS: Who we are

That is a rather presumptuous title, one might declare; for, it is always the “we” that others presume to know, as opposed to limiting the declarative within the restrictive confines of one’s self, family and surrounding community.

What is the great equalizer that allows for the collective plural pronoun?  Is it television (i.e., do “we” all watch the same shows and thus form a conglomerate of a universal consciousness)?  There was once a time when one could argue that a unity of convention existed — especially harkening back to the days when there were essentially 3 networks to choose from, and where all three were similar in content, thought and approach.

In modernity, is it the Internet?  But the worldwide “web’ is too diverse to narrowly formulate a cumulative effect of similar normative beliefs.

Perhaps that is why society in general is so diverse and fractured; where even a simple consensus amidst a small community cannot be reached, and how geographic differences have become exponentially and irreversibly altered and separated from one another.

Who are we?  Yes, the inversion substitution of the second word with the third makes the declarative into a query, and changes the entire subject matter.  It is, perhaps, both a statement and a question, and neither make sense, anymore.  And so we are left with a singular voice — of a monologue and an aside, or as in a play, a soliloquy, where the character asks the universal question, Who am I?  Am I the collective consciousness of my direct descendent, and does that have meaningfulness, anymore?  Why do we seek answers by purchasing and sending away “DNA kits”, as if the spiral spectrum of cellular anomalies would be able to answer the question which haunts us all?

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 potential loss of one’s identity within the community of Federal and Postal workers is often the step that is difficult to take.

One’s identity, purpose, drive and dreams are often bundled up into an inseparable conglomeration of work and identity, and to separate from that self-identification is often a difficult venture to undertake.  But the danger, of course, is that you may be forcibly separated if you do not take the steps necessary to protect your identity.

The Agency will ultimately terminate you, and the harassment because you have taken too much Sick Leave, Annual Leave, FMLA or LWOP is inevitable.  Better that you file for FERS Disability Retirement benefits and retain a semblance of who you are, lest the Federal Agency or the Postal Service does that to you unilaterally, leaving you with the question, Who do they think they are?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Universal Specialization

The world didn’t just become bifurcated over-night; it then shattered into a thousand universal parts, and each required a specialization where subsections of the primary subject became sliced into lesser wholes, the parts of smaller parts, until no one now knows how to do anything without the specialized aid of the specialist in the department of specialization.

The fractured world has become one of micro-competence, where once the jack-of-all-trades individual was needed in order to run a farm, feed a family, be a doctor to the animals, as well as work as a carpenter, plumber (oh, we forgot — outhouses were used back then, with nary a trace of indoor plumbing, so strike that), and the all-around “MacGyver” guy from the 1980s series where ordinary items were easily transformed into extraordinary problem-solving implements.

Overspecialization of a society leads to alienation; taken to the extreme, it makes into each of us incompetents to even turn on the faucet.  Marx would have been aghast — for, no longer is the assembly-line factory worker alienated from the work he or she works upon by not feeling the accomplishment of the “finished” product, but moreover, doesn’t even know the purpose beyond the 4 screws that are drilled into the monstrosity because of overspecialization.

Is the world a better place because we comprehend less of the pie that constitutes the whole, and is our knowledge of it any greater merely because dissemination of information is available via the Internet?  The two are somehow connected, are they not?

Somehow, there must be some mathematical formula involved, something akin to: The Greater the X, the Lesser the Y, when factors 1, 2 & 3 interface with exponential diminution of T minus Z. Complexity, in the end, often induces greater specialization, and unfortunately that is true in the field of Federal Disability Retirement Law.  “Local Lawyers” are rarely knowledgeable enough to represent Federal or Postal employees in an OPM Disability Retirement application.

The various Stages in the process of Federal Disability Retirement Law require precise and targeted responses; and for the Federal or Postal employee preparing to “put together” a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, it is not the right time to be the “MacGyver” type of guy; it is best to consult with a Specialist in Federal Medical Retirement Law, and prepare well for the fractured road ahead where universal specialization is a necessity in a world where horse and buggy are no longer existent except on faraway farms in Pennsylvania or other scattered places where the Amish retain the “old ways”.

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

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Broken Promises

It is a surprise that we are constantly surprised by them.  Why should we be?  Do we elevate man to such a pinnacle of virtue as the angels who look down upon us with remorseful eyes?  Are there more of them today, like shattered mirrors or destroyed lives littering the highways of hopeful futures stretching out into a path of devastated backdrops in the history of unknown commoners who lay quietly in the tombs that speak not but in haunting whispers in muted graveyards long abandoned with the silence of church bells that no longer toll?

Promises are but linguistic constructs that are controlled by the good intentions of those who make them, and restricted by the constraints of social virtues that no longer exist, have been modified, disavowed and have now been deemed archaic in this modernity of relative moral standards.

Once upon a time (or so the fairytale goes), a handshake, a nod, a single word without the written confirmation, the 10-page fax to declare a deal made, or the fine-print of agreements incomprehensible – they constituted the affirmation of man’s purity of intent, motivation and virtuous underbelly unseen but for the flight of angels touching and tugging upon our conscience when evil forces attempted to lead us astray.

Now, we have found the power of linguistic elasticity.  It is no longer a “lie”, and perhaps it was always known, just as Eve realized the cunning of justification, persuasive argumentation and methodological coercion; no, broken promises no longer exist – instead, it is a mutual “misunderstanding”, failure of minds to meet, or just plain wrong-headedness on the part of the one who relied upon a promise made.

No one really believes anyone else’s handshake, anymore – and, in any event, who shakes hands these days?  What can it mean but a mere vestige of an arcane eccentricity that needs be relegated to those rustic movies where granddad and obscure relatives and neighbors would jump from frame-to-frame in old movies where a wave to the camera was the memorabilia to preserve, now replaced by thousands of Selfies stored in electronic devices neither for posterity nor discretion of family enjoyment, but for self-aggrandizement and public display for prurient intentions.

Like granddad’s smile that once reassured as the solid Rock of Gibraltar, promises don’t mean anything, anymore.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who think that assurances of accommodating medical conditions because, somehow, laws are in place that provide for that, think about it for a moment:  Without the laws, would a promise mean anything?  Further, do the laws really protect, or are they also just linguistic modalities easily manipulated?  Fortunately, however, laws can work both ways, and Federal Disability Retirement Law operates in favor of Federal and Postal employees with a standard of proof geared towards an approval – of a preponderance of the evidence.

No, the promises made by Federal agencies and the U.S. Postal Service may not amount to much, and the heap of junk piles left behind by broken promises may litter the once-beautiful landscape of arcane handshakes in years past, but the availability of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits remains a reality for those Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who find that there is now an incompatibility between one’s medical conditions and the performance of one’s essential elements of the Federal or Postal job.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement Law: The mish-mash approach

Do you have a linear, sequential methodology?  Is the legal argumentation systematically constructed?  Or, is the mish-mash approach consigned – of a hodgepodge of thousands of hands at needlepoint in creating a colorful quilt for the Fall Festival of creative designs?

Is the Bruner Presumption invoked as an afterthought, and the Bracey-argument concerning accommodations defined in an obfuscated manner, such that the argument reveals more about what you do not know and understand, than of a pin-point accuracy as to the sharpening and attacking of the issues preemptively recognized?  Have, indeed, the knives been sharpened for the battle ahead, or have you revealed the dullness of the edges such that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will likely scoff with disdain and deny the case at the First Stage of this process?

There is a substantive distinction to be made between making an argument in a non-systematic way, as in a proverbial “shot-gun” approach or of throwing what substance you believe will stick and subsequently splattering it against the wall in hopes of increasing a statistically deficient implementation of the process; that, as opposed to a streamlined, methodological approach of sequentially addressing each issue in a preemptive, categorical manner, as well as recognizing what not to touch at this initial stage of the Federal Disability Retirement process, and in realizing what should be addressed.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, basing one’s approach upon a “hope and a prayer” that things will turn out well, is probably not the most effective nor efficient engagement of behavior.

First, the initial process and stage itself is a bureaucratically lengthy procedure, such that if the Federal Disability Retirement applicant does not enhance the chances of success at the First Stage, time is “lost” in that a denial will simply quantify by exponential multiplication the time taken at the Second, Reconsideration Stage; and further, another catastrophic delay if an appeal is needed to be taken to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.

In the end, the mish-mash approach is what most of us do in life, and often is the very reason why we ended up where we are.  But in the preparation, formulation and filing of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, it may well be time to abandon the mish-mash approach, and consider consulting with a Federal Disability Retirement lawyer who specializes in a different approach – one reflecting a systematic, methodological and sequentially logical engagement, refined through many years of experience and encounters with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire