FERS Disability Retirement from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Just as preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is an administrative process — as opposed to an “entitlement” where a simple act of filing or meeting an automatic requirement makes one eligible and entitled — where one must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Federal or Postal employee meets all of the legal criteria for eligibility; similarly, once the Federal or Postal employee obtains the Federal Disability Retirement benefits, it is a “process” which one must be prepared to embrace, in order to maintain the continuing viability of one’s OPM Disability Retirement benefits, and further, in order to preserve the right to retain and continue to receive the Federal or Postal Medical Retirement benefits.

That is why it is important to understand the entirety of the administrative process — not only in obtaining the benefit itself, but to ensure future compliance with the statutes, regulations and case-law.

While legal and on-line resources are certainly available and abound with vast information, ultimately those very resources must be applied; and in order to apply them, they must be interpreted by someone who understands the entirety of the administrative process.  “Trial and error” is often not the best approach in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Employee Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, if only because the “error” may outweigh the benefit of the trial itself.

As such, it is advisable to consult with a FERS Medical attorney who can guide one through the administrative process — not only at its inception, but in its continuing maintenance and retention of this benefit called, Federal Disability Retirement.

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 Application: Even in…

More and more, insanity appears to prevail and pervade everywhere, and thus do we all say, “Even in … “ Even in Japan, gun violence occurs; even in Copenhagen, mass shootings can happen; even in….  Why is it that nothing is ever contained within the locality of the occurrence?

Once upon a time, something which happened in another city, a different town, a far-away village, would only travel via a post-marked letter, with a newspaper clipping inserted within the letter — an envelope received from afar.   Nowadays, everything is instantaneous; for, with the internet, we have become that “global village” which the IT gurus have been pushing for, for so many years.

Will there come a time when some countries ban the use of electronic devices?  When the world of electronic devices were first invented, was a consensus taken, a vote given, a poll requested — as to whether anyone wanted this world?  Or, did the likes of Bills Gates, Steve Jobs and others simply dictate to us all that, whether we liked it or not, technology is here to stay, and all the while they can amass their wealth and laugh at the rest of society?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS because of a medical condition which now prevents the Federal or Postal worker from continuing in his or her career, fortunately, even in the Federal Government, there exists laws which protect the Federal and Postal employee’s rights when a medical disability no longer allows you to continue.

Such disability retirement benefits do not, more often than not, exist in private-sector or even state and municipal jobs.  So, to that extent, one cannot use the term, “Even in a private-sector job”, or “Even in State government jobs”, etc.

Contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, where even in this day and age, the Federal sector provides some good benefits for its employees.

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: Difficult versus Disabled

To the statement, “I am having greater difficulty in performing X, Y and Z” follows with the query: “But are you still able to?”

There is a conceptual distinction to be made between “difficult” as opposed to “disabled”.  Of course, the former may be an indication which may naturally and progressively lead to the latter, and may merely not be there, yet.

The operative word is “may” (a potentiality of disablement), here, as opposed to an established, present reality.  Or, it may be that the person speaking is misusing the language, and is trying to put the best face forward, and should have stated: “I cannot perform X and Y, and am having difficulty in doing Z”.

Human beings have a wide and strange capacity to endure and to cover things up.  Perhaps the person is having difficulty but no one sees it because he or she is simply “pushing through” and hiding the pain and disability quite well.  Or, perhaps the medical condition has approach a critical juncture where the impact of the medical condition is clearly manifesting itself to a point where Federal Disability Retirement needs to be contemplated.

In any event, the first step in making a valid, objective assessment in considering Federal Disability Retirement under FERS for Federal and Postal employees is to distinguish between “difficult” and “disabled” — where the former may not qualify you for FERS Disability Retirement, while the latter surely would.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement from the OPM: Perfect Sequence

But that life could mimic the perfect sequence; but rarely does it reflect perfection.  It is well that human beings have short memories; the famous adage that one needs to learn from history, lest the tragedy that will occur of repeating it — is a lesson never learned, because each generation believes itself to be superior to the previous one, more wise, more learned; arrogant to a fault.

And how would we know what the perfect sequence would be, when we know not what perfection itself is?

That is the argument, of course, for the existence of a transcendent being: That because we possess a conception of perfection, but we ourselves are imperfect beings; therefore, there must be a God in order for an imperfect being to have a conception of perfection.  But real life rarely works that way; and so we muddle along in imperfect ways, failing to achieve any level of perfection, generation after tired generations; degenerating into a muddle of imperfections.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that this condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application requires engaging in a sequence of formulations.  No case can encapsulate a perfection of sequences, but one can certainly come close.

Being an imperfect being, it is important to consult with a Federal Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law in order to reach — as closely as possible — a perfection of sequences in maneuvering the complex bureaucratic process of Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement for Federal & Postal Employees: That Lost Innocence

Can innocence lost ever be regained?  We often reminisce and shake our heads with wonder — what a naive, innocent young person we once were.  Do we yearn for that time of innocence?  Or, do we shake our heads at the stupidity we once exhibited and scurry away out of embarrassment?

With the present knowledge of cynicism and the current state of wisdom gained over these years, do we wish that we could recapture those day of youthful folly and have the chance to do it “all over again”?

If we could go back in time, would we take advantage of others with the knowledge we have today, applied in a context of prior innocence where others around us were also unaware and unsophisticated? Would we live our lives differently, knowing that today’s regrets were yesterday’s lack of understanding?  Is it true what the grumpy old man on the porch said in the perennially-watched movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life” — that “Youth is wasted on the young” (or was it George Bernard Shaw who first uttered those words?)?

What would we do differently with present wisdom applied to past circumstances?

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 or Postal employee to perform all of the essential elements of his or her Federal job, the opportunity to regain that lost innocence may be forever foreclosed.  You know — that time when work was a breeze and daily challenges were met with aplomb.

Federal Disability Retirement is a benefit that needs to be considered when that time past where innocence lost can no longer be regained and has now become a reality where the Federal Agency or the Postal Service cannot or is unwilling to accommodate the medical condition which remains unresolved.

Consult with a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest the innocence lost becomes a greater loss by adverse actions initiated by a Federal Agency or the Postal Service who takes advantage of the lost innocence that is now nowhere to be seen or found.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Explanation & Justification

At what point does an explanation begin to sound like a justification?  Is it when it becomes apparent that there is a personal stake involved?  Does the objectivity of an explanation lose its own justification when it becomes clear that the intended explanation crosses over into an attempt to justify the personal actions or beliefs of an individual?  Can an objective explanation justify a person’s actions without appearing as a justification; and do all justifications involve a personal stake, such that it goes beyond mere explanatory exposition?

Are all justifications “merely” an explanation with a personal stake, and are all explanations ultimately a justification for someone, somewhere, about something?  Why is it that an apparent explanation that turns into an obvious justification suddenly loses its credibility and sense of objectivity?  Is credibility itself gained if a third party provides the justification for someone else, such that there is no “personal stake” involved, and does such a third party’s explanation just as quickly lose his or her credibility if there is a “personal” relationship connected with the person for whom the explanation & justification is being made?

There is certainly a fine line between an explanation and a justification, and for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are suffering from a disabling 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, filing for FERS Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management may be the best option to choose from — and, when completing the questions posed on SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, it is well to keep in mind the distinction between “explanation” and “justification”.

Always keep in mind the words of Queen Gertrude in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, when she said, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Explanation on SF 3112A is good; explanation that begins to bleed of justification may raise some red flags.  To mitigate the distinction between the two, the Federal or Postal employee may want to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, to lend credence to an objective approach in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Employee FERS Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS Medical Disability Ret. Attorney

 

Federal Employee Disability Information: OPM’s Methodology

There may be a single criteria to meet, with subsets of requirements that must be complied with; yet, multiple methodologies in approaching the singular.  How can that be?  Isn’t it all simple, where you read what is required, then gather up all of the evidence that appears to meet it and simply send it all in?  That is the “volume methodology”.

Can a single sentence in a medical report ever meet the legal criteria in an OPM Disability Retirement case — i.e., a “qualitative” methodology, as opposed to a quantitative one?  Sometimes.

Isn’t the law clear in what is required, and isn’t it a matter of just amassing the medical evidence to meet the requirements as stated?  Hmmm…. For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical conditions prevent 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 understand, somewhat, OPM’s Methodology in reviewing and deciding upon a case.

First of all, not all medical conditions are equal.  Perhaps that is self-evident, but for the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from one or another medical condition, and must endure the daily pain, restriction and limitations imposed thereby, it may not be so self-evident.

Second, OPM is not some “neutral” Federal Agency that reviews a Federal Disability Retirement application with dispassionate objectivity, ready to grant an “approval” because you “believe” your medical evidence is “sufficient” to meet the legal requirements as stated.  Sufficiency is the gatekeeper that denies many a Federal Disability Retirement case — and it is not a methodology that is satisfied by quantitative (volume) means, not even necessarily by qualitative standards; rather, it is the reviewer (i.e., the “Medical Specialist” at OPM) who determines by some unknown and unknowable standard when the goal-post has been crossed.

Thus, in an OPM Disability Denial Letter, one may read a reference to one’s doctor’s note or a quotation from a medical report from one’s doctor, and think, “Good, this is very supportive” —then, with an appended end to the paragraph stating, “Such medical evidence does not sufficiently meet the standards to qualify for OPM Disability Retirement”.  Huh?

Think about it this way: “Sufficiency” may mean different things to different audiences; for example, what is a “sufficient” amount of food for a lion, as opposed to a domesticated kitten?

OPM’s methodology is, at best, malleable, as language in law is likewise changeable.  It is good to know this for Federal and Postal employees who are either getting ready to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, or who are in the middle of a fight to obtain it; for, in the end, consulting with an OPM Disability Retirement lawyer allows you to arm yourself with knowledge for the battle that OPM’s Methodology in determining Federal Disability Retirement cases must be prepared, like any legal battle that involves “criteria” to be interpreted.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation on Federal Disability Retirement Claims: The Source

Every vibrant and expanding civilization relies upon it; the crumbling ones disregard it; and the stagnant ones begin to question their necessity. It is applied in various contexts, but the importance of maintaining its relevance as the authoritative foundation cannot easily be dismissed.

We hear the word used in different contexts: Whereof the source of the the River Nile? What are your sources in arriving at your conclusions? And are they “original sources”, or “secondary” ones? And of the infamous “anonymous” sources — can they be trusted, or does the mere intimation of anonymity betray an unreliability precisely because there can be no accountability by the very nature of a faceless and nameless origination?

In modernity, since everything is “sourced” through Googling, and very little attribution is verified by “original” sources, does it matter anymore whether one’s asserted authority for declaring X, Y or Z is based upon primary or secondary “sources”, or even if it was an anonymous “third-hand” source?

Furthermore, does an obscure source of a little-known citation have any greater impact than one that is well-publicized and of common knowledge to all? If, in the course of a conversation, everyone relies upon the believability of a “source” — say, a stockbroker who has never been wrong, but then someone pipes in that “so-and-so” says to stay away from that company because it’s about to crumble under its heavy debt-structure” — who do we believe? Does it matter if the “so-and-so” referred to is a Board Member, or some insider at the accounting department of the company who is “in the know”?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition is impacting the Federal or Postal Worker’s ability and capacity to continue in his or her career, the sources and resources that you put together in preparing, formulating and filing your Federal Disability Retirement application should be original, reliable and dependable. — from the doctors who support you, to the lawyer who will represent you, to the credibility of the “sources” you gather.

For, in the end, the search for the source of the Nile matters not for “where” it is, but from what mystery of origination would flow such that the beauty of a civilization would spawn such a wealth of culture and originality.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer Representation for OPM Disability Retirement: The time watcher

How many times (stated in the numerical sense) do we watch the time (in the alternative sense)?  Do we waste time by keeping an eye on time, or is it prudent because it forces us to maintain a “schedule” or mandate a strict adherence to a regimen of activities to be performed, chores to have accomplished and work to be completed?  Does watching time save time or merely waste it?

Say a person keeps looking at his watch (or is this in and of itself an anachronism, now, as everyone merely lights up the smart phone which has made wrist watches outmoded?), and you notice that he does so systematically — say, every 5 – 10 minutes.  Then, at precisely 5 o’clock, he gets up from his desk, puts on his coat and leaves the office.  You realize that for the past hour, all that this person had been doing was to check the time in anticipation of leaving at a certain time.  Whether any actual work was completed; whether the watching of time contributed to any productivity, etc., is of relevance, are they not?

For, the time watcher watches the time pass, and it matters as to the reason underlying the very watching of time.  It one watches the time in order to meet a deadline, say, or pace one’s self in a race, etc., then does it make it more productive than if one simply waits for the last hour to pass in order to go on to something else?

Time watching is certainly something which we all do, but as to its usefulness will often depend upon the reason why it is engaged — as in, for “negative” purposes, like “passing the time” in order for a specific moment to arrive, or for “positive” reasons, as in monitoring the passing of time while engaging in a certain type of activity, etc.  The harmless activity of time watching becomes magnified in exaggerated form when the very “watching” itself becomes the central activity — sort of like the notion of “we live with the expectation of dying”.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who realize that one’s times are “numbered” (both in the numerical sense as well as in a metaphorical usage) because of one’s medical condition that prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it may be time to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal Service worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the watchful time watcher who watches as others whittle away the time wondering whether the next harassing initiation of an administrative sanction will be imposed by the agency, or of the watchful waiting to see if you fail to meet the standards of an imposed PIP — watching the time pass to see if you can make it to retirement age or time-in-service computation is no way to live.

If a medical condition is impacting your ability to perform the essential elements of your job, it is time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  It is time — or past the time — to merely think about it; rather, it is now time to act, and not remain as a passive time watcher, but to take the reigns of time and become the time watcher with a purpose.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: Leaving that legacy behind

We hear about it from ‘high-end achievers’; and every President now builds large temples to themselves, like some Greek gods with immortal canopies and call them “libraries” for the common minion to think that it is like those warm and fuzzy buildings we once visited in order to escape the ravages of our sordid childhoods.

Perhaps it is the realization of that which has come back to haunt us:  Darwinism, pure materialism, and the abandonment of faith in hobbits, gnomes and angels from beyond, that leaves us with the stark nakedness of our own mortality, and the need to fulfill that vacancy by building lasting memorials that only crumble with the decadence of time.

The traditional definition connoted a lasting gift by an ancestor, where history, lineage and human relationships provided a context of meaningful inheritance, and not merely as a tombstone to admire.  The wider, secondary meaning refers to any accomplishment or lasting residue of one’s self constructed to remain beyond a temporal season, or until that next great ego tears it down and replaces it with an image made in a reflecting pool of self-aggrandizement.

We all have a desire and a need to leave a legacy; whether a memento gifted through countless generations, or a memory of multi-generational gatherings for an adventure, a once-in-a-lifetime trip, and perhaps nothing more than some pearls of wisdom handed down from a rocking chair worn by the vanished paint on the floorboards of time.

Even then; as value is rarely attached to memories invoked, people either hock the wares on eBay or the local pawn shop, and convert it into cash, where the societal glee for power is defined by paying bills and possessing goods.  Do people inscribe books and hand them down as a legacy left behind?  Or have they been replaced with electronic tablets and kindle versions where even the monks of Tibet answer to the melody of a smartphone?

Legacies are overvalued, or so we are told; and those who leave them for others to judge, never stick around to witness the lasting or temporal effects of residual emotional consequences.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition “forces” one to cut short one’s career and vocation by preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is the pull that holds one back and makes one pause, an artificial and wholly unfounded sense that one hasn’t “completed the mission” and the legacy that would be left is not quite up to par?

Such thoughts invoke a false sense of values.  For, in the end, it is one’s health that should be of paramount concern, and not what is left behind.

In Federal agencies and U.S. Postal facilities all across the country, that legacy left behind is often nothing more than the shattered lives who clung too long and waited beyond the point of medical necessity, when in fact the true legacy to leave behind is a focus upon one’s health in order to move forward into the next phase of one’s life.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Attorney