FERS Medical Retirement from OPM: Better Days Ahead

If you have had the worst of days, then looking forward to better days becomes an undeniable fact of predictable certainty.

Good and bad days occur for all of us, whether determined by some objective standard, or by the whims of altering moods.  Like weather patterns and tempestuous personalities, the accounting of days and their qualities alter by minutes and lesser fractions thereof.

Human beings possess an excellent capacity for self-determination and defiance of fate and karma, both of which are influenced by the attitudes we display.  Can we always count on better days ahead?  And more to the point, how can we contain and circumscribe the bad days?

It has been variously pointed out that frustration is produced by the broader gap between expectation and achievement, where one’s unrealistic anticipation of goals to achieve falls far short of realistic ends annotated.  Thus, it is always essential to identify items which will come to fruition no matter what.

In other words, always include in any “to-do list” items that you are bound to be accomplished, anyway.  More importantly, circumscribe the boundaries of the current “day” and do not include more than an identifiably limited time quantification.  Stated differently, there should be a beginning time and an end point as to what constitutes a particular day.

Finally, it is always a given that we should discount Mondays — for, the day following a weekend will almost always be disastrous, no matter how we attempt to decorate it with outward appearances of successful annotations.

Are some of these tactics mere attempts at self-delusion?  Perhaps, but if we are to avoid the fates of mischievous gods who playfully attempt to throw lightning bolts in the paths of our daily lives, we must anticipate them and adjust our actions accordingly.

And for Federal employees and U.S. Post Workers who are engaged in the frustrating bureaucratic process of applying for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, any and every mechanism employed in order to sustain a sense of humor will help you survive the maddening administrative process and help you survive to a successful end.

For, sometimes, the gods who play with our lives are not those mystical creatures watchful among the clouds above, but mere mortals walking to and fro amidst the bureaucratic halls of government offices.

And to maintain your sanity, you may want to consult with a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to see what legal shields may be effective against OPM’s random and capricious lightening bolts of denied applications.

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 from OPM: Just Beyond

That is what makes you pause, yet unsure — the “just beyond”.  Maybe its a dream — but it is just beyond your grasp.  Perhaps the directions you were given — just beyond the next corner, just beyond the next town; or just beyond what even Google Maps can lead you to.

Or, in a Federal Disability Retirement case, it is the argument that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management makes in denying your Federal Disability application under the FERS system:  the insertion of a word here, an unfamiliar legal phrase there, always “just beyond” a suspicion as to whether they are correctly stating the legal criteria or the statutory authority cited in denying your case.

OPM systematically engages in such word-usage — of using phrases and inserting words which go “just beyond” the law, but in fact do not comply with the actual legal requirements.  And, as the individuals who make the decisions at OPM are themselves just beyond any accountability, they engage in such misuse and mis-application of the law with impunity, knowing very well that they will never have to answer for such mis-characterizations.

Thus, for example, does a denial of a Federal or Postal Disability retirement application often refer to the fact that “Social Security did not find you unable to be employed” — which may be true, but is a statement “just beyond” the laws governing a FERS Federal Disability Retirement application because what Social Security determines has absolutely no relevance to your FERS Disability Retirement application.

Or, OPM might say something like, “There is no evidence that your Agency could not have accommodated you beyond all possible means”.  Yes, but that is not the law; rather, the issue is whether your Agency could have “reasonably” accommodated you; not, whether you could have been accommodated beyond all possibilities within the universe of theoretical possibilities.

Again, OPM engages in legal jargon “just beyond” the boundaries of truth and integrity.  To make sure that OPM stays within the boundaries of statutory authority, contact a FERS Disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and always make sure that you apply the law not just beyond, but within.

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.

 

FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Maintenance and Repair

We know the difference; of performing regular maintenance as opposed to the necessity of repair when something breaks down.

In recent years, there has arisen a cottage industry for every type of mechanical device: Of heating units and cooling systems; of automobiles; of computers; snow blowers, etc.  Maintenance is the yearly or semi-annual need for attending to required cleaning, parts-replacement and other issues — in an effort to prevent a breakdown.

Repair is when the breakdown occurs, and when we can then blame either the failure of maintenance as the failed preventative measure (now, in reflection, thought to have been unnecessary), or the question as to why such maintenance failed to detect or otherwise forecast the failure.

Medicine itself has engaged in that line of thinking: By getting regular checkups, scheduled diagnostic tests, follow dietary guidelines, etc., we believe that such “maintenance” actions can prevent the onset of disease and conditions.

An analogy can be made for preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS: Preventative maintenance is hiring a lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law; Repair is if you do a “do-it-yourself” approach for the Initial Stage of the Process, or even the Reconsideration Stage, then you go to a Federal Disability Lawyer to “repair” the denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

In the end, while no lawyer can guarantee a successful outcome in a FERS Federal Disability Retirement application, the preventative maintenance of a Federal Disability Retirement application is the preferred course, but if you get denied, you will certainly need to get the legal repair-work done by contacting an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement Legal Advice: The Soil of Easy Growth

We plant seeds in such soil — that enriched type which allows for delicate seedlings to begin life with a fresh sprout.  Metaphorically, we try and provide that for our kids — of that rich “soil” for easy growth — of a healthy, positive environment; toys; warmth; needs taken care of; of supportive extended family; protection against potential dangers; of puppy licks and hugs to give the newborn the soil of easy growth.

But then things change.  We cannot forever seclude children from the greater world of dangers and devices; and it is the periods of drought which strengthens, the encounters with poor soil which challenges, and winds of turmoil which helps the plant to become stronger.  And so it is with people.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows for the Federal worker to thrive in the career of his or her choosing, it may be time to consider filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits.  The soil of easy growth may once have been the Federal or Postal job; but with the advent of a medical condition, that soil has now turned into the poor soil of clay.

Contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and consider changing your current career into another area of soil where the soil of past easy growth may yet bring forth the greater fruits of productivity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Changing Minds

How does one person change another person’s mind?  Is it through threats, intimidation, rants and raves?  Or, does logical persuasion ever come into play?”  Does the quiet voice or tone of calm alter a person’s viewpoint?  Or must it all be rage, firestorms and pounding of fists?

Of course, most people would answer in the following manner: It depends upon the circumstances.  Certainly, context matters.  Sometimes, a passionate response is appropriate; at others, a calm, soothing tone of persuasive logic.  Threats, intimidation, acts envisioning bodily harm — these, of course, are never appropriate, and one wonders whether such tactics ever really changed another’s mind, or whether the change of heart was merely for the sake of self-preservation.

To change a mind, one must become convinced about the validity, truth and sincere superiority of the other’s position, argument, perspective, stance, decision, etc.  Passionate advocacy can certainly play a role in it; systematic and logical persuasion can sometimes be the difference; and in Federal Disability Retirement cases, application and citation of the relevant and applicable laws will always be an effective tool.

For Federal and Postal employees who are filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from OPM, consult with a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and see whether or not — at the outset — the Federal or Postal Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law cannot change you mind, and OPM’s in the best course of action in the preparation, formulation and filing of an effective Federal/Postal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Looking After Yourself

All of our lives, most of us look after others.  Sure — there are those who are self-centered, egoistical, and selfish to a point of absurdity; but the rest of us find value in caring for others, or of working towards something else, at the expense of our own “whatever”.

There is much talk these days about joy, happiness, contentment, etc.  Gone are the days where you should do “whatever makes you happy” — for one thing, the economy isn’t good enough to embrace such a philosophy.  For another thing, it is often impractical for the art of living to simply pursue one’s desires.

We work for others; we do things to please others; we even accede to another’s wants and needs; and perhaps, in a perfect world, if everyone did things for others, it would mean that everyone’s needs would become satisfied because everyone else is also looking after yourself.  But that approach to life works only in a perfect world; whereas, much of modernity proves the opposite: If you don’t look after yourself, no one else will.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition begins to prevent you from performing one or more of the essential elements of your job, it is high time that you began to look after yourself, and not worry about your Federal Agency, your coworkers, your Postal Facility or anything else.

Health is of paramount importance.  Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of preparing an effective FERS Medical Retirement application in order to begin looking after yourself, for once.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The prerequisite of thought

What constitutes “thought” and fails to satisfy the allegation that one has not engaged in it?

Take the following example: A young man who is courting a young woman buys a bouquet of flowers on his way home, but stops by at her place just to say hello.  She — seeing the flowers — declares, “Oh, how thoughtful of you.”  He sheepishly smiles and nods his head, but in reality the flowers were to spruce up his own apartment.  He explains this to the young woman, and she turns a smile into its opposite — a frown — and reverses her opinion, telling the cad how “thoughtless” he is being.

In reality, he had done no such thing — he had, in fact, “thought” about it, only not in the sequence that the young woman had desired.  Yet, he is charged with being “thoughtless” — and one could argue that such a charge is applicable in that he should have “thought about it” before stopping by her place, and instead should have gone ahead and followed a route straight home.

Or, of another example: Say you are debating a point with another individual, or a group of individuals, and someone during the course of your monologue says, “It is clear that you haven’t thought about it.” What, precisely, does that allegation mean and imply?  Would it have made any difference if you had previously taken yourself into a corner, sat for an hour or two reflectively posed like the famous statue by Rodin’s “The Thinker”, chin upon knuckle in a reflective pose of self-absorption — then come back to engage in the discussion?

What if your contribution to the conversation included as great an expanse of idiocy as if you had not “thought about it” — but the mere fact that you had sat for a couple of hours, or perhaps a weeklong sojourn of contemplative solitude — does it make a difference?  Isn’t “thinking about it” often done in the course of give-and-take, during the conversation engaged, as opposed to being lost in one’s own mind?

Further, isn’t singularity and isolation of “thinking” often the wrong approach, inasmuch as you may be missing something, have inadequate information, illogical in the process because of selfish interests unrecognizable, and therefore the best kind of thinking often involves debate, countering opinions and other’s input, as opposed to the isolationism of “The Thinker”?

Would it make sense to ask a dozen or so physicists to “solve the mystery of the universe” by gathering them together, then making each sit in a corner and “think about it”, as opposed to engaging them in a “give-and-take” brainstorming session?  Isn’t much of thinking “done” by engagement with others, as opposed to a soliloquy of isolationism?  If so, then why is there too often a prerequisite of thought?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have “thought” about 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, the first and most important step in making the “right” decision may not be by engaging in an isolationism of “thinking about it”, but by consulting with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law.

There is no prerequisite of thought in picking up the telephone and having an initial, free consultation with an attorney to discuss the particulars of your case, and engaging in the thoughtful exercise of considering OPM Disability Retirement by actively participating in the productive modality of thinking.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Road Maps

Does the “new way” diminish other manners and approaches?  Does an increase in technological guidance diminish and decrease the self-reliance and initiative required once upon a time?

Take, for example, the trip taken today — any trip: One merely types in the address or the phone number, presses a button and Google Maps guides you to your destination.  In days now gone and forever forgotten, one had to take out those old paper maps (you know, those multi-folded, accordion-like Rand McNally relics) stuffed in the side door compartment of one’s vehicle or dug out from under the piles of old registration cards in one’s glove compartment, and carefully follow the numerical and lettered cross-sections of quadrants in planning the course of a trip otherwise lost in the morass of unfamiliar territory.  Or, like most men — just “wing” it.

Does the loss of a road map — the necessity of its very relevance and existence — mean that there are reverberations in other sectors of one’s life, or in the way one’s brain works?  Do we, because of the ease of Google Maps, become lazier, expect that everything will be self-guided, and is that the future for everything in life, especially once the self-guided vehicle is perfected?  Does the expectation of technology’s ease make us lazier, allowing for procrastination to become extended beyond reason, where we no longer “plan” for things well in advance, assuming that whatever the issue or anticipated endeavor, it will all be taken care of by a click of a button, or at most, a few keyboard taps away?

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, road maps are a necessity of life — both for the Federal or Postal employee in maneuvering through the complex administrative pathway of a Federal Disability Retirement application, as well as in preparing a “legal roadmap” for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in approving the Federal Disability Retirement application.

In both cases, the road map is similar to that old Rand McNally map that required quadrants to be precisely followed: For the Federal Disability Retirement applicant, the need for precise guidance by the best route possible in order to obtain an approval from OPM; and for OPM, the proper legal citations and arguments that will persuade them to grant the approval.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation on Federal Disability Retirement Claims: That voice within

Whose voice is debating within the insular corridors of the otherwise silent individual?  Which one is the dominant voice, and how does one determine if that particular voice should be the one which attains such a prominent status and stature within the cauldron of one’s own thoughts?

We assume, of course, that when we are pondering within the insularity of our own thoughts, that the voice which speaks within is our own voice; but is it necessarily so?  Yes, yes — the traditional concept of “madness” will begin to encroach, of strange voices which begin to invade and intrude, and where schizophrenia is considered the likely explanation whenever “other” voices are considered.

But that is not what is necessarily the case.  It may be that the voice within is simply a regurgitation from a memory stored long ago — perhaps of one’s parents; a friend; an old school chum; a brother, sister or a cousin; and it is retrieved as an amalgamation of many others, besides.  More importantly, who determines the validity of what is being said, the subject of debate and the substance of the winning argument?

The danger of a soliloquy is that the lone figure who tries to figure things out on his or her own may not have all of the facts or information at hand which can lead to the right decision being made.  An unheard conversation undertaken and engaged by a singular voice may be no discussion at all; it may merely be a wrong-headed delineation based upon errors in fact and missteps in logical analysis.  That is why it is important to consult a person who specializes in a field and is knowledgeable at the outset, so that the facts gathered and the analysis conducted are sound methodologies based upon superior analytical insights and resulting in expert advice.

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, it is important to gather the necessary and pertinent facts about the entire process, the known administrative facets and pitfalls, etc., so that a superior decision can be reached in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, so that the voice within will avoid the mistake of listening to too many voices without which may lead him or her down the false paths of misinformation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire