Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Law: The Arbitrary Discount

When it is to one’s favor, of course, the arbitrary discount is a welcome benefit.  Every now and again, it happens — more often in an independent store, where the owner will say, “Well, you’ve been a great customer; I am going to give you a 10% discount just because…”.  Just because what?  No reason — just because it is Saturday; just because you are pleasant; just because I wanted to, etc.

That is the nature of an arbitrary discount.  However, what about an arbitrary discount when it is not in your favor?

In a Federal Disability Retirement case, the OPM “Medical Specialist” may deny a Federal Disability Retirement application with the following reasoning: “Your treating doctor is not a specialist in treating X.  The restrictions placed on you are therefore invalid and you have not shown that you are disabled.”  WHAT?  And yet — it is just another arbitrary discount — the discounting of your treating doctor as a valid person to make reasonable medical decisions; it just so happens that such an arbitrary discount is not in your favor.

Even though, of course, the law supports you in every way and even though OPM’s opinion should be discounted entirely.  But hey — OPM is the independent owner of the “store”, and they can do what they want, right?

Contact an OPM Disability Retirement Attorney who can and will fight against such arbitrary discounts.

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.

 

Medical Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Workers: The Approach

In every endeavor, there is what is termed “The Approach”.  It is not any single thing, but a variety of issues comprised of the preparatory work which is engaged; the manner in which a case is developed; the sequence of work that is implemented; what part the client is expected to do; what the cost is; how accessible is the attorney to the client on a regular basis; to what extent the attorney him/herself actually engages in the process, etc.

Different law firms have different approaches, and it is important for the potential client to assess and evaluate which approach works best and why.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition and can no longer perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position, consider the “approach” of a potential lawyer you intend to hire — and evaluate, assess and determine the best “fit” for your particular situation and circumstance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Standard of incompatibility

How does one “prove” a standard of “incompatibility”?

Physical injuries often allow for a medical opinion to impose certain restrictions:  No lifting more than X-pounds; no standing more than 2 hours within an 8-hour period, etc.  These, then, can directly “prove” that a Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, by comparing such restrictions as against the positional requirements of a given job, and “showing” that the standard required can no longer be met.

The “other” cousin of the standard, as reiterated by cases represented by Henderson v. OPM and related precedents, allow for a “different” type of proof, where one may show that there is a general incompatibility between the entirety of one’s position and the medical conditions one suffers from.

It might be argued that such a standard is more “nebulous” and “harder to prove”, but in fact, the opposite is often true: specificity on a 1-to-1 ratio between a given medical condition or symptom and an element of one’s positional duties no longer becomes necessary.  Rather, a general showing of incompatibility between the “type” of job and the “nature” of a medical condition is enough to qualify for Federal Disability Retirement.

The trick, of course, lies in the manner of “proving” it, but it should be of some comfort to Federal and Postal employees that there is another type of standard beyond the 1-to-1 ratio standard that applies generally for “physical” duties; for, in the end, many psychiatric conditions can only meet the “incompatibility” standard, although some specificity of inability to perform a particular function of the job may be present as well.

To meet either standard is a burden of proof that must be shown by the appellant in all OPM Disability Retirement cases; to understand, apply and satisfy such standards, it is best to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Medical Retirement: Absurdity with an explanation

According to Quine, the great mathematician and logician, that is the definition of a paradox.  It is an event or a concept that seems at first glance to be an impossibility, or a conundrum of some complexity, but can be explained to unfold the absurdity first displayed.  Thus — of the man who has walked the earth for decades but is technically only 9 years old, until one realizes that his birthday falls on the 29th of February, a date that appears only once every 4 years; this is a paradox, until the absurdity is explained and it suddenly makes sense.

Similarly, a medical condition is a paradox: It is an absurdity of sorts, especially when it hits a person in the prime of his or her life.  What possible explanation can be had?  Where is the “fairness” in it, and why do some people who eat all sorts of junk food for years on end never experience the calamity of a chronic and progressively deteriorating medical condition?  Where is the “equal employment opportunity” of a devastating medical condition?

Where is the sense of “fair play” displayed when a medical condition pounces upon a Federal or Postal employee and suddenly no amount of past accomplishments make up for the sudden loss of productivity and need to use the accumulated sick leave, and even invoke FMLA rights in order to attend to one’s health?

For Federal and Postal employees 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 position, the paradox comes in the form of when to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.  For, filing a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is indeed an admission of a need for change; yet, paradoxically, change is precisely what your Federal Agency or the Postal Service does NOT want — they want you to continue as before the onset of your medical condition.

The absurdity resides in the lost sense of priorities: work, as opposed to one’s health; stresses that exacerbate, as opposed to relieving those elements that contribute to one’s deteriorating conditions.  The only explanation that makes sense is to prepare, formulate and file a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to OPM in order to be able to focus upon one’s health.

That is the paradox, and the absurdity with an explanation for a Federal or Postal employee who needs to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire 
Postal & Federal Employee Retirement Attorney

    

Attorney Representation for OPM Disability Claims: ‘It could be worse…’

Do other species utilize comparative analysis as a tool for deciding the next course of action to take?  Or, does the existential, “here-and-now” appetitive nature of non-human beings rule, such that the conclusion reached — “It could be worse” — never plays a role in the decision-making process?

For, that is the basis of the conclusion reached, is it not?  Of remaining static, refusing to change, in deciding to not make alterations to present circumstances no matter the cost or the pain — that by coming up with imaginative, hypothetical models of circumstances real and fantasized, encapsulating descriptive conditions far worse than the one being endured by you, we can therefore justify continuation of maintaining the status quo?

How much worse must it get before one discards the idea that it could be worse?  Or, are the boundaries of human imagination so limitless that the enduring of present circumstances is always preferable to modification and change; or, perhaps that change itself is so naturally resisted, because the comfort of monotony and repetition provides the sequence of security that favors the stability of an unchanging universe?

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 preservation of the status quo is often preferable to the trauma of needed change.

One can justify for quite a long time the grasping on to that which one has, and to not change; and the justification can be maintained for quite some time in the very statement, “It could be worse…”.  That is the safe path, the road of least resistance; but the question unasked is the one unanswered and therefore untold as to the progressive deterioration of one’s health; Of: “Could it be better?”

That question can only be answered in conjunction with the realization that one’s health is never something that should be sacrificed on the altar of one’s career or work, and preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is the first step in recognizing that, Yes, while it could be worse, it could also be better.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Life’s Alliteration

The repetitive recurrence of mirroring sounds or letters at the beginning of adjacent words is merely a reflection of how we live our lives.  What is inherent in human beings that we would discover, create or otherwise compile an aggregation of such a linguistic phenomena?

The universe could have continued happily on its mindless course of fated determinism without people engaging in such nonsensical rhythms of prose and poetry; but as each act of indeterminate vacuity has an underlying psychological explanation, so all such engagements of sociological developments must by necessity possess a paradigm of purpose.

Is it because we find solace in the quietude of repose when patterns of universal expectations can be discovered?  Why do we eternally seek the “laws of nature”, or insist against Hume’s diatribe of causal effects that the billiard balls will act in certain ways upon impact despite the lack of a “necessary connection”?  Is it in the comfort of habitual living, of familiar environments and known paradigms into which we seek refuge?

We take delight in the designs which quiet our souls; of lack of turbulence, despite our own havoc which we inject all around.  Small towns; lost civilizations; tribal communities in the forgotten corners of the world; perhaps they still exist without the turmoil pervasive throughout the life the rest of us are familiar with; but if they do, they will soon be stamped out.  For, in the end, distinctive differences are characteristics which we fear most.

We claim that we celebrate diversity; yet, look at how everyone melds into each other and uniqueness is slowing disappearing.  We declare that divergence of ideas and opinions are contributory to a community; but we end up all watching the same shows, hearing the identical voices, and where even political parties are essentially the same but for shifting bribes to garner votes.

That is why the linguistic mechanism of alliteration is but a reflection of life itself; it is no accident that the repetition of consonants, vowels or sounds was playfully discovered; it is, instead, the comfort zone of which we seek, in order to reassure ourselves that the chaotic world we continue to fathom will at least appear in a semblance of repetititve constancy in the words we utter.

Order and stability are necessary traits in every life; that is why, for the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker whose life has been turned upside down with the turmoil of a medical condition, it is important to begin contemplating the long and arduous path towards attaining a Federal Disability Retirement annuity.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, the turmoil of the medical condition, the sudden and proverbial “cold shoulder” shown by the agency because the Federal or Postal employee is no longer fully “productive” or able to advance the “mission of the Agency”, it is important to secure a semblance of stability for one’s future.  Whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the Federal or Postal employee who must prepare, formulate and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits will have to maneuver through a complex maze of alliterative conundrums.

And what of life’s alliteration?  You will note that this blog never engaged in such nonsense throughout.  Of course, that could change exponentially, excepting exceeding expectations exchanging entities encompassing elements eerily entraping epilogues entirely endlessly.  Or so it goes.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement from Federal Government Employment: Right Thinking

Thoughts are essentially neutral, until they interact with the greater community of ideas.  Once introduced before the judgment of others, the validity, rightness or fallacy of the substantive content can be challenged, and ultimately tested in the arena of reality.  Life can often present a harshness of consequences; ideas left in the insular universe of solitary contingencies, confined as unchallenged and ultimately deprived of consideration, are mere artifices of impotence otherwise lost in the vacuity of meaningless tropes.  “Right” thinking becomes so when thrown into the arena of a community.

The rightness itself is already presumed by the very introduction into the Wittgensteinian language game of challenging and challenged constructs; and the paradigms left in dusty drawers and closets never opened, remain as dungeons of worthless residues too timid to touch, too hesitant to open, and too afraid to reveal.  Wrong thinking, thought deprived of the fanfare of acceptance, may yet come back another day, and replace the outdated paradigms once considered paramount and of penultimate designation.

Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, often engage in the “wrong” thinking process precisely because of the inherent hesitation in changing course.  It is, indeed, a wonder and a befuddlement that the Species of Man has propagated so successfully, despite the wrongheadedness of the genetic latency as reflected by foolhardy artifices of thoughtless vacuity.

Some instances of “wrong” thinking by Federal and Postal employees:  “The medical condition will go away”; “My agency will work with me in accommodating my medical conditions”; “Tomorrow, or next week, or perhaps next month, my Agency or the Postal Service will do the right thing.”

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is essentially a “neutral” matter, until the pragmatic steps of preparing, formulating and filing for the process of OPM Disability Retirement is actually engaged.  “Right” thinking is not a matter of political leanings, but of practical steps taken to secure the future of a Federal or Postal employee.  “Wrong” thinking is to think that actions necessarily follow by mere engagement of a conceptual construct.  For, remember that old adage of the philosopher who was so lost in “deep” thoughts upon the heavens above, that he fell into a cavernous ditch and died there starving under those very stars he maintained his gaze upon.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire