FERS Disability Retirement Help: The Unraveling

It is similar, yet quite distinct, from the concept of “unwrapping”, or even of “finding”, “revealing”, of “unearthing”.  For, the other words describe an indication of voluntariness — of a third-party agent (or even of the first-person pronoun) engaging in an act of deliberative steps toward an appearance of something.

But that other term — the word which is today’s focus — has a frightening aspect of loss of control, inability to contain, a lack of freedom or choice, and even implying a frailty of crumbling, catastrophic consequences.  When there is a societal unraveling — or even a personal one — there is an underlying sense that the constraints, borders, fences and outer membranes which once restrained and held together the entity contemplated, are now disintegrating.

The term, “bursting at the seams” or “cracks in the foundation” and similar metaphors, are all appropriate when using the term, “unraveling”.

Sometimes, it seems that society as a whole is unraveling.  But societies don’t unravel unless there is an aggregation of personal unravelings, where the cumulative effects of many such individual unravelings result in the further metaphor of “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” phenomenon, in a negative, reversing manner.

Unraveling, of course, is what sells newspapers and online stories; the trading of bad news is always scintillating for the prurient needs we all ascribe to; and the antidote to such a sense of unraveling is to take a walk through your own neighborhood, where it is likely that things still likely appear “normal” and “together”.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are experiencing a personal sense of unraveling because of a chronic medical condition which impacts one’s ability and capacity to perform the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal Service job, the solution may be to file for FERS Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Preparing an effective Federal OPM Disability Retirement application under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) is tantamount to taking that “walk” through one’s own neighborhood, to get away from the greater sense of unraveling.  For, whether society as a whole is unraveling, or you next door neighbor’s life appears to be boring and normal, you may want to contact a FERS attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal or Postal 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.

 

OPM Disability Retirement Law: Pronounced Uncertainty

These are uncertain times.  Global upheaval has always been the norm; “peace”, if merely the absence of war, has been a rare moment in these decades of forever wars.  Stability is what most people seek — of an opportunity to have the economic and political calm in order to pursue dreams, goals and career choices.

But when uncertainty becomes so pronounced that future plans become threatened, a level of anxiety begins to prevail, leading to delays and dismay of hopeless despair.  Medical conditions, as well, have the same influence on a personal level.  For, medical conditions — whether chronic or acute — lead to a pronounced sense of uncertainty and hesitation.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows you to perform all of the essential elements of your Federal or Postal job, contact an OPM Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer and consider the option of filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application in order to stabilize the future plans which have become of pronounced uncertainty.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Preparing a Seamless Application

Is it possible?  When two fabrics are sewn together, it is almost always the case that a seam will appear; but it is the expert seamstress who has the knowledge of the proper stitch, the “tricks of the trade” and the technical knowledge in order to make it appear as if the boundary doesn’t exist, so that the two foreign bodies mesh and meld into one.  There may be multiple seams in creating a piece of clothing; where the sleeves meet; the attachment of the pockets; or, for style’s sake, sometimes the seams are meant to show.

This is true of almost any process which involves the combining of materials, people, organizations and differing entities — the “seams” must be sewn in order to become a combined but single body; the question is whether there will remain a weakness in the seam, to what extent the seam will show, and how strong the seam will be.

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 position, the key to preparing a seamless application will depend upon the proper analysis, evaluation and coordination of the various elements involved in the process itself.  The medical evidence to gather; the relevant information to include; the legal arguments to be made; the nexus between the medical condition and the essential elements of the position — these all must be brought together by the expert hands of the “tailor” who knows the “stitches” to apply.

Consult with an Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law in preparing as seamless an application as possible.  For, it is the expert tailor who has the knowledge and expertise to make both the process and the substance as a seamless entity, and that is the key to a successful outcome.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement from Working with the Federal Government: Originality

It is a frightening word; for, it is what we all strive for, yet almost always fall short, fail or attempt to justify and obfuscate for not quite reaching that goal.

Fortunately, there are at least two, but likely an infinite number of, avenues of avoidance in being charged with its lack:  First, and fortunately, plagiarism is not a criminal offense and, moreover, no one really seems to care except in the most egregious of instances, and furthermore, for those professing to be constrained by Catholic orthodoxy, it isn’t even a venial sin, let alone a mortal one.

Second (and ad infinitum as to the corollaries, so that we do not have to go beyond the phrase, “And secondly” or engage in the Internet’s most popular search engine contrivances that always includes, “Five ways to..” or the “Ten most important…”), there is always an excuse for its lack, beginning with:  “Well, I did the best I could”; “It’s not so important to be unique as to feel good about yourself”, and the dead ringer:  “There is no originality left; everything has already been spoken for.”

Is that why the period between “the original” and “the remake” keeps becoming shorter and shorter?  Is it an unavoidable truism that – from themes and plots for stories, novels and other similar genres, to television shows and movies, as well as songs and artworks – there is a limit of finite constraints that even human creativity cannot avoid?

History reveals that originality of profound dimensions will arise in spurts and burps; from Continental Europe’s juggernaut of painters and writers, to America’s continuum of astounding literary greats including Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Updike to Vonnegut; and, in the great tradition and power of the Russian novelists and playwrights, from Dostoevsky to Chekhov and multiple others, without even reaching back to centuries preceding, the originality of works steeped in profound insights cannot be denied.

Has modernity followed a similar course, or has the bludgeoning of unceasing informational overload tempered the capacity of human creativity?

There is a known, coy quip about the formulaic recipe for great literary or visual works:  “Have a terrible childhood, and write about it.”  Thus, such a perspective is reinforced by Dickens and other coconspirators.  A cousin to that rule is to live through political turmoil under repressive circumstances, and the validation for that is revealed by Eastern European and South American writers of current vintage, especially now that translations have been improved and perfected.

For Federal Gov. employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the concern about originality should enter but only in a cursory manner.

Facts must guide; the evidence will prevail.

In preparing answers to the connivances of questions required on SF 3112A (a form known as the Applicant’s Statement of Disability), do not try to be “original” in writing the narrative of one’s life, medical conditions and the impact upon one’s positional duties.

Remember always the other quip that must be recognized:  That each individual is already a paradigm of the original, and while the narrative engaged may not always be unique, and the reviewer at OPM may have “seen one and seen them all”, it is nevertheless one of a kind whether recognized and acknowledged by others, precisely because the life-experiences the Federal Disability Retirement applicant has endured has been nothing but original in the first instance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: The bonds we forge

As a verb used with an object, the meaning is lost because the context of antiquity remains as mere pages in the history books of a former era, when horses needed shoeing and the hammer and anvil heard the rhythmic pounding of sweat and hard work from the center of town; and without the combined usage with an object, it can include the act of imitation and fakery, as in illegitimately replicating documents without the originator’s consent.  The former sense implicates a vision of strenuous input; the latter, a meticulous care to reinvent or mirror that which fools a third party into thinking that it is the original, as opposed to something likened thereto.  In either case, the toil of effort is required.

Those bonds we forge — whether over a lengthy period, or within a short while — require just that:  time.  And beyond, maintenance in order to secure the togetherness cemented.  The concept itself necessarily implies the prerequisite of first being apart, then coming together.  Once bonded by the labor of forging, care needs to be taken that we not put too great a stress upon the once-fractured point; for as the link which binds is only as good as the strength of its weakest remedy, so the glue that casts the inseparable pair must by rights be allowed to coalesce.

What people fail to realize, however, is that the true and strongest bond which is forged, must be carefully maintained over time.  Left unnoticed or unattended, the disrepair which re-fractures the covenant of unity can easily fray despite the historicity of that red-hot steel that once glowed in the hearth of reddened embers.  That knowing look evinced from the wince of shared pain formerly acquired in memory’s cradle; the sidelong glance of a joke shared between two islands of thoughtful reflection, turned into mirth by a fading laughter like a cup which clinks ever so gently when the ice cubes melting in the heat of day shifts the microcosmic glaciers of a summer’s delight awash in the bitterness of cold tea.

In modernity, we mistake the quantification of people pushing the button of “likes” with the inviolable encounters between fellow human beings.  And, indeed, it is often because of those friendships forged and relationships embraced, that Federal and Postal workers often pause before considering the necessary breach resulting from the needs imposed by a medical condition which prevents the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker in filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

For, often, it is time itself which cements and solidifies without the notice of effort expended; and the camaraderie and relationships developed over months, years and decades can be the defiance of surrender, if only to extend the moments of memories passed.  But at some point, even the bonds we forged may not be enough to contend against the forces of time, nature, health and fate; and when a medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal employee’s ability and capacity to continue on in the job or position of professional choice, then it may well be that the bonds we forged may need to be severed, as time allows only for a moment’s grace in the floating ships we think we steer, when in fact, all along, we were mere passengers biding our seats with but a temporary pass occupying for a limited time.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: The caustic nature of disdain in parity

In human history, class structure — whether of bloodlines or lineage; of wealth or claim to title and royalty; or of validated descendants from ancestral superiority — has been the norm.

Then, along came a religious figure (unnamed herein to avoid risk of inflammatory offense and preventing the potential for implosions of alarming hashtags in fits of fear and panic) who posited the notion that the “poor” (that class of mass populace which comprises the greater part of the world) should take “pity” upon the “rich” (those in the minority of the greater class struggle who control and manipulate the invisible levers of the world) because of the difficulties inherent in obtaining the proper credentials to enter through the proverbial pearly gates.

He went further in word-pictures of masterful storytelling, painting images of hellfire, suffering and punishment for those who mistreated the former, and where rewards, awards and commendations bestowed were merely of a temporary and ephemeral nature, whereas the eternal damnation based upon pleasures enjoyed in the temporal world would last well beyond the palliative superficiality of currency beheld.

The problem unstated, however, when the concept of “pity” was introduced, was twofold:  First, the validation of such a feeling and perspective made equals of those in unequal circumstances, and one could even argue, reversed the roles maintained for societal conformity and stability, and enforced a parity of stature; and, second, the emotional and psychological make-up comprised in the very heart of “pity”, is akin to “disdain”, and is a close cousin thereof.  Yes, yes — the one attaches to charity, a desire to assist and retains elements of empathy, sympathy, etc.; but it is more than that.  “Pity” allows for parity of status and stature, just as “disdain” reverses the roles of societal convention.

That religious figure of yore (though we may impute total and complete omniscience upon the fella) injected into society a heretofore unnecessary and problematic component of societal disruption.  It is, indeed, the caustic nature of disdain, which can evolve from pity, that presents itself as the poison which kills and the infectious spreading of ill-will and discomfiture.  The feeling of unease quickly spread throughout nations and continents, and we are in the state we find ourselves in modernity, because of that uninvited infusion of dissatisfaction.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who daily toil with a medical condition, and face the onslaught of the Federal workforce and the Postal groups, the problem of pity and disdain, and their combined causticity is well-known.  So long as you were healthy and fully productive, your coworkers, Supervisors and Managers treated you within the well-defined “class-structure” of acceptable conduct and behavior.  Once it was “found out” about your medical condition, suddenly their attitude and treatment towards you changed, and altered dramatically, or perhaps (in some instances) in incremental subtleties of quiet reserve but spiteful turns.

Perhaps some “pitied” you, and you them; but such feelings have turned to disdain — not on their half, but from your perspective. Why?  How?  You are the one with the medical condition, who cannot perform all of the essential elements of your Federal or Postal job, so what right have you?

Precisely because of that historical figure of yesteryear; that the true essence of human nature is to be cruel, and thus the best alternative remaining is to prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in an effort to preserve the last vestiges of a class structure quickly fading in this world where the caustic nature of disdain in parity still survives.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: When the superior argument no longer prevails

The potentiality of applying “jury nullification” opened the door to defiance, in a society constructed upon recognition, application and enforcement of “the law”; but of course, one may argue that such wholesale rejection of a conceptual construct deemed immoral or otherwise unfairly prejudicial, is itself a moral judgment which is allowable.

Would anyone argue that a jury which refused to convict during a trial in a repressive and totalitarian regime — say, in North Korea today, or during the Stalinist era — constituted “jury nullification”?  Or, would one simply declare that “the people” rightly and collectively decided to “stand up” against injustice, and applied a higher standard of the law — one which transcends the state’s attempt to impose an otherwise self-declared code of injustice by means of fiat and force?  It all depends upon the perspective; for, when the state empowers a group of individuals to possess, grant and apply the power of judgment rendered in the form of a verdict, then that collectivism of declared consensus constitutes the rightness or folly of a moral code itself.

In the end, the term itself is likely inappropriate; for the concept of “jury nullification” necessarily implies something underhanded or nefarious, as if the “jury” acting to “nullify” the law is somehow suspect, when in fact it is a declaration of rights asserted by means of granted power to do so.  The jury, by definition, is a law unto itself, as recognized by the state, and is therefore wholly independent and cannot be castigated for undertaking the very duty for which it was appointed to perform.

Now, as to whether or not it was receptive to, and embraced a lesser argument, as opposed to a superior one, is a fundamentally different question.  Were emotions swayed?  Did the eloquence of the opposing side overwhelm?  Did rationality and force of evidence persuade, or did the defendant’s mother back in the corner where spectators sat, weep silently and blow her nose into a soiled kerchief just enough to draw the attention of wandering eyes left pondering the fate of a devastated family? And does rationality always have to rule?  By what criteria do we demand that rationality always rule the emotive and appetitive?  Is it based upon the ancient code derived from Plato and Aristotle, of the various parts of the soul where the mind should govern the cosmos of the barbaric nature of our base selves?

But if circumstances and situations rule the day — such that in a “State of Nature” it is more advantageous for an individual to survive by pursuing instinct and animalistic aggressiveness, but in the more refined “Social Contract” basis the forms of civility and restrained interaction becomes the normative and accepted foundation, is not judgment of a fellow man a netherworld of intersecting universes, where the contradictory combining of war (a form thereof, as in a trial) and civility (of a jury deliberating in the quietude of a sequestered room) clash in culminating in a momentous fate of judgment?

The conclusion from modernity has already been rendered, of course; for, in the end, young people today care not for the force of rational argumentation, but rather, whether it “feels good”.  What reverberating consequences does such a force of change have upon society as a whole, and more specifically, for the Federal or Postal worker of today who must consider arguing to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management that the Federal Disability Retirement application should be approved?

Superior arguments, of course, should always be employed; and the Federal or Postal worker should never underestimate the power of legal persuasion, or the citing of relevant laws, statutes and applicable regulations.  But there is a distinction to be made, between demanding and dereliction of decision-making.  The former is to use a hammer; the latter is to posit a systematic methodology of courteously opening the door for recognizing the sunlight of “being right”.

For the Federal or Postal worker who wants to submit an effective Federal Disability Retirement application to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal worker is under CSRS, CSRS Offset or the FERS retirement system, remember that the concept of “jury nullification” applies only when the right to decide is somehow deemed improper or unsanctioned; but when it comes to a bureaucracy which possesses the sole power to decide, it is an inapplicable construct, and must be approached in a manner more akin to the grieving mother whose murderous son suddenly appears with a suit and tie for the first time in his hideous life, and speaks eloquently of his undying love for family and the victim upon whom he perpetrated his crime, and when the wink-and-nod between son and weeping mother remains unnoticed but for the love forged in treachery, justice yet smiles even in verdicts which betray the greater society.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

b