FERS Disability: Enhancing the Chances for Success

Every missed opportunity lessens the chances for a successful outcome, and when you are dealing with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the FERS system, and specifically when attempting to obtain a Federal Disability Retirement from them, you must take every opportunity to reinforce and take advantage of each chance given.

At every turn when OPM requests further information, such communication provides an opportunity to cite a legal precedent in characterizing the strength of your position or to reiterate the legal basis as to why your case merits further consideration beyond the “run of the mill” cases.

Can you argue the Bruner Presumption even if you have not been separated from Federal Service?  Can you make an argument by analogy?  Can you argue the “inconsistency” argument as propounded in Henderson v, OPM, or the 4-part test in Bracey?

By making such arguments at every opportunity presented, you enhance your chances for successfully being approved for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  For, in the end, all roads in a Federal Disability Retirement case lead to an appeal with an Administrative Judge at the U.S, Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and OPM is fully aware of this plain fact.

Because OPM knows that successive denials of a FERS Disability Retirement case will ultimately lead to an appeal to the MSPB, citing relevant case laws at every opportunity presented will enhance your chance for success.

Contact a disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin to enhance your chances for success in obtaining an approval for your FERS Disability Retirement application.

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 Disability Retirement Benefits: The Referee

There has always been an endless debate as to the preparatory value of playing sports — does engaging in competitive sports prepare one for the “real world”; do individualized sports (i.e., tennis, swimming, running, etc.) access the same “benefits” as “group” sports (i.e., basketball, football, soccer, baseball, etc.)?

Does “team” spirit, cooperative engagement with others, a sense of “belonging”, of sacrificing for the greater whole, etc., have any benefits in “preparing” one for the adult world of work and capitalism?  Or, does it merely reinforce certain negative instincts which “civilized” society has been trying to expunge for the past century?

Then, of course, there is the question of the referee — the role of one; whether and to what extend bias and favoring is involved; or, whether we should merely rely entirely upon instant replay and other electronic devices?  Should the “human factor” be allowed to rule, or should a game be determined by the precision of a computer program?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition necessitates filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, don’t be fooled into thinking that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is an unbiased “referee” who will make a fair determination on your Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sports (at least the amateur kind) may be for fun and good health, but filing for your Federal Disability Retirement is for “real life”.

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and make sure that you have the proper advocacy to win your case.  For, while the “referee” (OPM) may be empowered to make the call of denying or approving your Federal Disability Retirement application, it is your lawyer who advocates to influence OPM to make the “right” call.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement for Federal & Postal Workers: The Argument

When does a “discussion” turn into an “argument”?  Of course, the difference and distinction is sometimes a matter of perspective.  Tone, tenor and even facial expressions can certainly influence whether an exchange is a discussion or an argument.  The raising of voices, the mannerism of the participants — listening to two people on radio speaking about a subject can also alter the listener’s perspective concerning the distinction.

The word itself — “argument” — of course, can have different meanings.  Some people prefer the usage of a euphemism — that “so-and-so had a heated discussion”, as opposed to describing it as an argument.  Friends often employ such terminology after the fact in order to blunt the effect of any discord which may have arisen.

One can “advance an argument” without raising one’s voice, but a spousal argument normally involves a heated exchange.  A meandering discussion can be interrupted in order to re-focus the exchange, with the admonition of, “What is the argument you are making?”  Or, in a debate, the moderator will often intercede and pointedly ask, “So, would you please clarify your argument?”

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are attempting to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is the “main” argument of the case — that you are medically unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of your job — but then, there are multiple and complex other “sub-arguments” which must be made (e.g., issues concerning performance, accommodations, sufficiency of medical evidence, etc.).

You need to sharpen your arguments, streamline them and make sure that, first and foremost, you know what all of the issues are to begin with.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who knows not only the legal arguments to advance, but the “discussions” which must be addressed — even if it gets somewhat “heated”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The Growth Stopper

In life, inertness is considered “bad”; it is progress, the ascent of man and the constant striving towards attaining and achieving which are considered “good”.  “Growth” and the incessant need to extend, expand and extoll the virtues of acquisition and accomplishment remain the medals of success; and whether we agree with such values, it is as if we never had a choice.  Isn’t how we define the parameters of what is important to us the basis of happiness?

For Aristotle, the world was seen in terms of constant potentiality striving to reach the actualization of an entity’s intended fruition.  Thus, a stone does what it is meant to do when it constantly falls to the lowest point in the chaos of the world; a lion achieves its value of Being by being what it does best — of being the aggressor and catching its prey; in other words, by being a lion qua lion-being.

And what of man?  To reach his or her potentiality by achieving the essence of what each individual human being was meant to strive for and accomplish, but in a moderated way without the excesses of either extremes upon the spectrum of choices (read his Nicomachean Ethics).

Growth, for every organic being, is crucial to the very essence of its reason and value for existence.  It is thus its opposite — the “growth stopper” — that is considered as “bad”, “evil”, and contrary to human nature.  But sometimes, in life, we have no choice in the matter, and having a medical condition is that “growth stopper” that must make one pause and redirect one’s focus and value.  Ultimately, 2 things have to always be done: Define what values constitute “growth”; then, determine the best course of action to progress in that endeavor.

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 job, “growth” will need to be redefined.  Is “growth” worth it at the expense of one’s health?

FERS Disability Retirement is not a “growth stopper”, but a growth enhancer — for, it is a retirement and a basic annuity to allow the Federal or Postal worker to pause, refocus one’s priorities upon one’s health and well-being, and then take the steps to progress toward other endeavors and vocations in life.  In other words, to re-prioritize.  Yes, the medical condition can be seen as a “growth-stopper”, but it is how we define our values which makes all of the difference.

Sincerely,

Robert R.McGill, Esquire
FERS Disability Retirement Attorney

 

Federal Employee Disability Information: Yesterday’s sorrow

Yesterday’s sorrow may not be able to be put aside today, or even tomorrow; but yesterday’s sorrow may be today’s, or of the morrow if left unattended to.

Sorrow can take many forms; of the weight of anxiety and worry; of a traumatic event or occurrence; of news of a tragedy that touches one’s soul to the core; and if left unattended, or ignored or otherwise bifurcated, truncated or misplaced in the everyday hullabaloo of life’s travails that become lost in desiccated splices of yesterday’s memories, they can nevertheless remain with us in the subconscious arenas that become tomorrow’s paralysis.

Life is tough; loneliness in life becomes the daily routine of daily sorrow; and even when surrounded by family, so-called friends and acquaintances and even of spouse and children, the sense of being alone in the world can be overwhelming.  Who can understand, let alone sympathize, with one’s sorrows of yesterday when today’s trials cannot be conquered?  And who can fathom the contests yet to be met when we can barely handle the residue and crumbs of yesterday’s sorrow?

Yet, we all recognize that yesterday’s sorrow will be today’s shadow of haunting victuals, and even of tomorrows feast for beasts who prey upon the meals left unfinished; and yet we must persevere, with each day leaving some leftovers and allowing for the garbage heap to become more and more full, until one day the garbage we left in our lives spills over into a raging delirium of uncontrollable fright.

Yesterday’s sorrow is today’s mirror of what tomorrow may bring if left unreflected in the image of how we view ourselves.

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 duties, yesterday’s sorrows may be the medical conditions themselves which have become a chronic and unrelenting obstacles to today’s victory, and of the morrow’s fulfillment.

Preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted ultimately to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, may be the best course of action in attending to yesterday’s sorrows, lest they become today’s burden and tomorrow’s nightmare.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Medical Retirement: Meeting the basic requirements

As with any endeavor, meeting the basic requirements is the minimum standard.  For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, it is important to understand the basic eligibility requirements in order to qualify for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Here are a few: The minimum Federal Service requirement (18 months); of having a medical condition during the tenure of one’s Federal Service that prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position; and an inability by the agency to provide reasonable accommodations or reassignment; and some further factors to be considered, as well.

Beyond the basic requirements, of course, are the technical issues that have developed over many years and decades, primarily through statutory interpretation as expounded in court cases and decisions handed down by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  There are, moreover, legal refinements and interpretations that go beyond the “basics”, and while meeting the basic requirements is an important start, it is critical to understand the technical legal refinements which have evolved over the years. “Always start with the basic requirements; and from there, consult with an expert for further details.”

Such is the sage advice often given before involving oneself in a complex process, and Federal Disability Retirement Law is one such administrative endeavor that should take such counsel into account.

Start with meeting the basic requirements — of the minimum 18 months of Federal Service; of having a medical condition such that 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; and from there, seek the advice and counsel of an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law — another “basic requirement” in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire 
OPM Disability Retirement Attorney

 

Federal OPM Disability Retirement: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

It is the acronym that represents a Federal Agency whose “headquarters” is located in Washington, D.C., but has an intake office in Boyers, Pennsylvania.  There has been somewhat of a “reorganization” of sorts, where — in the past — the Boyers Office was merely where all Federal Disability Retirement applications were received, initially processed for identification and assignment of a “case number”, then shipped to Washington, D.C. for further consideration, evaluation and determination.

However, in recent months, the reorganization at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management has involved shipping cases back to Boyers, PA where the actual assignment to an administrative specialist, an initial medical review and ultimate determination have been made.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management has thus been in somewhat of a “transitional” mode as cases have been, and are being, divided between the two locations, with the ultimate goal of transferring all cases back to Boyers, PA.  Telephone numbers have been changed, some internal turnover and turmoil have occurred in the meantime, as happens with all organizations that experience and undergo changes.

However, the good news is that there appears to be some movement in issuing decisions on some older cases that have been sitting at OPM for quite a while, and such minor indications give many Federal and Postal employees a glimmer of hope that his or her Federal Disability Retirement application will soon be favorably resolved.

Wherever your individual case is at — at either the Boyers location or still at the Washington, D.C. location — always remember that Federal Workers throughout are attempting to do their jobs to the best of their capabilities, utilizing the tools provided and the manpower available, and while frustrations may be justified because of the thin line between patience and panic, courtesy in speaking with anyone at OPM should always be the first, middle and last line of a successful inquiry.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Government Employment: Terms

Language is a malleable vehicle.  There have been times in the history of language, when the staid and stodginess period of loss of vibrancy became the rule, followed by epochs of radical vicissitudes, upheavals and counter-conventional revolutions in the medium of language games.  Whether this encapsulated slice of linguistic alteration, upending traditional forms of communication because of electronic media and the hype of language abbreviated by Twitter, Texting and Tablet Titillations, will last the short life of technological innovation and obsolescence, is yet to be determined.

For example, the time of Shakespeare’s linguistic explosion of experimentation and expansive usage became in retrospect a richness of entering into connotative language meanings from which we benefit to this day.  But steadiness, continuity and conditions of stability are also important in order to take the proverbial breather to accept, embrace and assimilate (a term widely used for contextual purposes in modernity applied to immigration reform, as well) the linguistic revolutions that become incommensurate with meaning, communication and conveyance of terms.

Terms are important, both in common usage and in technical application.  In the arena of Federal Disability Retirement Law, different words are splayed about, sometimes without regard to proper application, especially when the “law” often requires a greater attention to precision of meaning.  Some simple and common crossovers of linguistic confusion involve:  “medical retirement” and “disability retirement” – do they mean the same thing?

If reference to either term involves the submission for an early retirement to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, then the answer is “yes”, they do mean the same thing.  Federal Disability  Retirement is identical to “Federal medical retirement” if by such words the query is referring to filing for an early retirement based upon the Federal or Postal worker’s inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position, and therefore the intention is to access an early annuity because of one’s early retirement based upon the medical condition, and submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Some other terms often confused or conflated:  “On-the-job injury” or “pre-existing condition”; these terms are often used in the language-arena of Worker’s Compensation issues, and rarely have any import – or applicability, at all – in the context of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  For, in a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the applicant is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it matters not whether or not one has been disabled “on the job” or away at a skiing accident; instead, what is important is the impact of the injury or disease upon one’s ability and capacity to perform the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position.  As for a “pre-existing” condition – that, too, is more likely appropriately defined in an OWCP context, and rarely in filing a Federal Disability Retirement application.

In any event, “terms” are meant to be used within a context-appropriate content of filings, and in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, it is important to clarify and conform to the applicable statutory mandates in defining and using the terms which are most appropriate and effective.

For, in the end, the explosion of language during the era of Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Age reverberates with critical linguistic richness to this day; yet, if we were to have a conversation with a bloke from that era, the terms employed would not only confuse us, but confound us with a profound sense of despairing lack of cogency despite our self-aggrandizing declarations of superiority and advancement in the modern parlance of greater self-esteem.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Self-predication

Some people are uncomfortable in doing it; others relish the repetitive self-reference, enjoying the first-person attribution and the incessant pronouncement of the personal pronoun, the centrality of dramatic characterization every time the “I” is inserted; throughout, everyone recognizes that the identification of the “I” can never be fully expunged despite a heightened level of modesty or humility.

There is an artfulness to speaking about one’s self while at the same time making it appear as an objectification of the referential focus.  Talking about oneself; constantly inserting the self-attribution throughout a narrative; dominating every element of a conversation with self referential accolades; these can all be overwhelming, leaving aside the issue of being irritating.  But in some circumstances, such self attribution cannot be avoided.  There are times when we must talk about ourselves, but the manner of how it is done can be the difference between repetitive boredom and referential relevance.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must file 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 requirement to prepare, formulate and file one’s Statement of Disability on Standard Form 3112A is something which must accompany every Federal Disability Retirement application. That is where one tells one’s “story” about the medical condition, the impact upon the ability to perform the essential elements of one’s positional duties, and upon other and personal aspects of living.  Of course, self-reference and attribution of the personal pronoun must be used; but it is also a time and place where a prevailing sense of objectivity should be garnered, and where peripheral irrelevancies should be strictly limited and contained.

Concise brevity should guide one; reference to outside sources and medical evidence should be encapsulated; the story of centrality should be about the impact upon the personal “I”; and yet, throughout, the truth of the narrative should come out such that self-predication does not constitute self-promotion with an ulterior motive, but rather, that the universe of living beings has for a brief moment in time, allowed the spotlight of significance upon a singular entity who has dedicated him/herself to the mission of an agency, but where unforeseen circumstances of life beyond one’s control has necessitated the preparation, formulation and filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire