OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Future Robbing Present

How much time do we spend worrying about the future?

In this concerning age, where debts keep rising, expenses keep increasing, wages remain stagnant and instability around the world continues as a reality we are all faced with — the amount of time spent in anxious anticipation of a future not yet established is a reality which we all must constrain.

Planning for the future is a necessity; articulating plans and loosely following them, a nuisance; but what of worrying about a projected experience not yet upon us — is it a mere waste of time?

The future robs the present by keeping our focus outside of the experiences of the present; whether by brooding about it, being lost in thought for it or merely fidgeting with anxiousness towards it; it all amounts to the same:  The joy of a present experience is lost because of the worry which overwhelms us.

Of the past — we tend to relish or regret it; but inasmuch as it is something that has already occurred, we do not obsessively remain in that time slot; unless, of course, we fear the consequences of past actions upon future events.  But it is for present circumstances that may trigger future worries — as in a medical condition currently experienced that we project into the future as to the medical condition’s capacity to impact our anticipated lives.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition will likely prevent the Federal or Postal worker — in the future of, say, 6 months hence, 12 months beyond, 3-5 years of becoming — from performing one or more of the essential elements of his or her Federal or Postal job, it is always a good idea to consider early in filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.

If worry for the future is robbing the present, then it is time to consult with an Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.  Worrying about the future will not change or alter the course of events yet to come; to prepare for a pathway towards such change for the future, it is wise to first consult with an experienced Federal Disability Retirement Attorney, lest the future come upon you unprepared and like a thief in the night robbing you of your present.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The historical data

How much historical data is too much?  Is there a correlation between “too much” and “loss of interest”? In other words, when a history book is written, does the interest shown by the reader begin to wane when a certain point of quantitative overload begins to overwhelm?  Further, does the audience for whom the historical data is written depend upon the extent given?

Certainly, “popular” historical narratives provide “juicier” content than more “serious” biographies, where the salacious aspects of a person’s life or of an event are put to the fore, as opposed to relegating them to footnotes or in those “fine print” pages at the back of the book.

If, for example, data is compiled for an internal study for the “Historical Society of X”, then certain detailed information without limitations might be included — i.e. how many times this or that civilization went to war, went to the bathroom daily, ate one kind of fruit as opposed to another, etc. But if that “study” were to be made into a biography of an indigenous tribe, to be sold to the general public, it might leave out certain of the more uninteresting data, or placed in footnotes or “background notes” at the back of the book.

At what point does a historical narrative become “tedious”?  Again, is there a correlation between “interest shown/sparked/waning/losing” and the extent of data provided?  Is there a “qualitative” difference as opposed to sheer quantitative overload?

These issues are important to keep in mind when a Federal or Postal employee begins to write one’s narrative in response to questions posed on SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability.  For, there is always a tendency on the part of the Federal or Postal applicant to have this unquenchable desire to “tell one’s story”, as opposed to answering the question on SF 3112A in as precise, concise and incisive manner.

At times, some amount of historical background may be relevant and somewhat necessary, but unlike “internal studies” that have no cognizable consequences in providing “too much” information, an overabundance of irrelevant data provided may have a duality of negative results: First, it may take away from, and diminish, the “main point” of the narrative, and Second, you may be providing information that is inadvertently harmful to one’s OPM Disability Retirement case without intending to.

Remember always in a Federal Disability Retirement case, that the eyes that once see cannot be blinded after the fact, and it is better to provide information as a supplemental means in a Federal Disability Retirement case, than to have to explain, correct and amend after a denial is received from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Information: Accuracy

How important is accuracy?  The converse of such a query, of course, is:  Is inaccuracy significant?  One would immediately posit:  It all depends.

Take the following 2 hypotheticals:  An archeological dig is conducted, and it is believed that the site of the ruins is of relevant importance concerning a time-period of “recent” history — say, during the American Revolution.  Given that scenario, the “dating” of the site should be ascertainable within a year succeeding or preceding, such that if the Lead Archaeologist declares that the event in question occurred in 1778, “or possibly in 1779, maybe as early as 1777”, we know that — given the time period in question (1775 – 1783) — such a statement conveys a fairly accurate historical context.

Now, take the same hypothetical, but this time [sic] concerning some form [again, sic] of a fossil that is deemed at least 500 million years old.  If the Lead Archaeologist declares with some hint of irony, “Give or take a few million years more or less” — what would our reaction be?  Is such a “find” just as accurate as in the first hypothetical?  Can a declaration that is numerically off by a few million years (i.e., looking at it in quantifiable terms of 24 hours in a day times 365 days in a year times 2 – 5 million years equals how many hours for those who want a graspable perspective) be called a “science” in any meaningful usage of the term?

Of course, one could argue that even within the first hypothetical, given the limited range of years that comprises the American Revolution (1775 – 1783, or a mere 8 years), to be off by a year or so is also quite an astoundingly inaccurate assessment.  But which is “more accurate” — the one that is estimated within a year, or the one that quantifies it in terms of “millions” of years?  Can one even ask the question of “more or less” accurate, when the very concept of accuracy itself denotes precision and pinpointed, undeviated marksmanship?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the question of “accuracy” can be a crucial one.  How “accurate” does one’s Statement of Disability need to be on Standard Form 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability?  What “precisely” does the treating doctor have to include in the medical report?  How detailed (and therefore, accurately) does the nexus between the medical documentation and the Applicant’s Statement of Disability does it have to reflect?

In all such questions, “accuracy” is a goal to attain in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

For, while the Archaeologist may be “off” by a quantifiable sum of years in a site-dig and suffer little to no consequences, the Federal Disability Retirement applicant must depend upon the accuracy of the law in determining benefits to secure a future yet uncertain, and such an administrative endeavor is likened more to the accuracy of the arrow that is shot towards an apple resting upon the head of a young boy, than of a declaration made that is off by a few million years, give or take, more or less.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Medical Retirement through the OPM: Altered States

When once the tide of change was welcome, where youth allowed for upheavals and malleability; replaced by age, leading to a staid and stable of stability, how repetition constitutes peace, an unadventurous respect for quietude.  But is not inertness the precursor of death?  Altered states and changed circumstances tend to be easily adapted to when one is younger; but as age seeks the sedate, so the vicissitudes of life and what they portend creates a havoc and turmoil of turbulence where the seeking of quietude becomes an end in and of itself.

That is why weekends are guarded with such ferocious aptitudes; and how Mondays invite the blues of depression and despair.  Medical conditions tend to equalize life’s loss of balance; for, as a condition of existence, the debilitating nature they impose, the chronic pain, the loss of mental acuity and disequilibrium of mind, body and soul; suddenly, whether a weekend or a week day, it is a matter of degrees within an altered state of existence.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal Worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is an option which the Federal or Postal employee should seriously consider when once the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties in the Federal or Postal job.

For, it is within the context of a busy and tumultuous life, when the Federal or Postal employee must accept the altered state of existence where a medical condition begins to disrupt the continuity of productivity; the altered state itself must be changed; and the change is often the need to leave the Federal workforce, but with an income and annuity sufficient to provide a stable economic circumstance, and where health insurance can be retained for the foreseeable future in order to continue to receive the medical treatment necessary.

Federal OPM Disability Retirement may not be the perfect solution for every complex circumstance, but it is an option which provides for future choices to be left open, for opportunities remaining yet to be met, and for a positive altered state to be embraced where a negation of stability is encountered within the deep chasm of a medical condition which has caused a disequilibrium of life’s unexpected vicissitudes.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal & Federal Disability Retirement Benefits: Beyond the Efficacy of Advice

There comes a point where the tripartite intersection between factual urgency, advice, and the receptiveness to such advisory delineations, becomes a futile act of inertia.  Facts are often self-evident to most who seek to view and understand them; advice, based upon the facts as presented, is rarely profound or enlightening, and quite often merely states the obvious, based upon the facts as perceived; but it is the problematic venue of the one to whom advice is given, where negation of due consideration and persistence in intractable stubbornness betrays the efficacy of the first two prefatory components.

The good thing about advice is that it is free; the bad, is that it can be ignored or otherwise shelved into bifurcated compartments of a schizophrenic mindset. The real quandary comes, however, when the tripartite intersection is met with a fourth element, making it into a quadrilateral conundrum:  a state of affairs which actually is self-destructive.  Medical conditions fit into that category.

When medical conditions have a chronic and debilitating aspect, manifesting a progressive deterioration upon the individual through systemic failures and symptoms warning of greater impending trauma upon the body or psyche, and one refuses to acknowledge the signals or otherwise ignores the urgency of telltale signs, then the avoidance of the coalescence of facts, advice and receptiveness to advice goes beyond mere qualitative stubbornness, but becomes a character flaw of ignorance and deliberate dimwittedness.

Whether the medical condition involves physical pain and conditions represented by chronic back or neck pain, degenerative disc disease, shoulder impingement syndrome, internal knee derangement, Crohn’s Disease, Sjogren’s Syndrome, Rotator Cuff injury, or a whole host of other physical conditions; or, perhaps it encapsulates psychiatric conditions of Major Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder, suicidal ideations, Bipolar Disorder, etc. — whatever the medical condition, when the facts speak, the advice reinforces, and receptiveness to the advice is negated through stubbornness or intractable refusal, the time to consider alternative approaches to life must be faced.

For Federal and Postal employees who are under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is that option of consideration.  If the medical condition impacts the Federal or Postal employee’s ability to perform all of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, then it is time to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

If the Federal or Postal employee’s treating doctor has already stated that seeking a different line of work is advisable, but that point of intersection where facts, advice, and receptiveness to such advisory delineations has been ignored, but where the fourth quadrant involving increasing medical manifestation continues to haunt, then it may be time to reconsider, and engage in the most primordial of acts which even the lowest of primates does not ignore:  self-preservation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire