FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: Delaying the Inevitable

A fascinating historical period involved, in the 17th Century, the controversy between Jansenism, Pelagianism and multiple other “isms” concerning predestination, grace, effectual grace as opposed to prevenient grace, and whether our efforts for moral behavior make any difference at all, and Pascal’s response to such issues.

For, if something is inevitable, is there any point in expending the effort in attempting to “influence” the outcome if the outcome is predetermined, anyway?  If the Calvinist theology of a limited number of “the elect” is true, and X is not of the class of “the elect”, what would be the point of acting in a morally upright manner if it makes no difference?

Instead, wouldn’t human beings likely try everything to delay the inevitable — of clawing onto this life merely to survive at all costs, including murdering and enjoying every sensual pleasure, knowing that the inevitable was the pain of eternal damnation?

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, “delaying the inevitable” — of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — may seem somewhat akin to the 17th Century theological controversy described above — if merely because continuing in one’s career is preferable to ending that career and going into early medical retirement.

However, there is one crucial difference: The “inevitable” will allow you to work at another job in the private sector or for the state and local government, and still allow you to make up to 80% of what your former (Federal or Postal) position currently pays.  Thus, unlike the inevitability of hellfire and damnation, you can actually move forward into a second career.

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Medical Retirement under FERS and stop worrying about delaying the inevitable; for, the inevitable is not as negative a state of being as you might think.

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 Medical Retirement: Delaying the Inevitable

In our “heart of hearts”, we already know.  Whether it is a broken relationship, an unrepairable mechanical device, the old air conditioning and heating system that has seen its last days — or of needing to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS — we already know; and yet, we delay the inevitable.

Do miracles happen?  If we stop thinking about it, will the problem just somehow go away?  Out of sight, out of mind?  Human beings have that capacity, don’t we?

Whether it is beyond the next mountain, sometime after Labor Day, maybe in the New Year — or “sometime next week” where next week is always the week after; whatever the timeframe we allow for the delaying of the inevitable, we focus upon a hope which surely must someday encounter the reality of our circumstances.  The inevitable is just that — a reality which we must face; but the delay allows for an interlude and self-delusion to procrastinate the encounter with reality.

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, delaying the inevitable — of needing to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — is often engaged in because of the great hassle in facing a dominant and dominating Federal bureaucracy.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who deals with OPM on a daily — nay, hourly — basis, and leave the inevitable to an experienced lawyer in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Out of Love

There can be a duality of meanings, of course — of doing X “out of love” or “being” out of love.  The two are opposites, or of conceptual antonyms.  What does it mean to act “out of love” — in the first sense of the phrase?  Does being compensated for doing something necessarily and immediately cancel any notion that one is doing it with the pure motive “out of love”?

Take the following hypothetical: A man foregoes a career and all advancement opportunities to take care of his sick uncle.  He does this without complaining, always with tenderness and care.  The neighbors are full of empathetic praise, saying things like, “Oh, what a wonderful and caring young man,” and “He is so devoted to him!”

Later, in the gossip columns of life’s entreaties, there is a footnoted notation that the young man inherited a large sum of money, and that the source from which the inheritance came had a contingency of requirements: In order for the young man to receive the money, he “had to” take care of his uncle and never complain about it. Do such revelations extinguish the previous praise showered?

And of the “other” conceptual bundle: How does one fall “out of love” — as if love is something we mistakenly fall into, to begin with, like a cavernous hole in the middle of our paths that we accidentally stumble into and, still later in the relationship, we similarly “fall out of” in the same manner?  Do conceptual confusions as applied to individuals have any meaning when universalized?

For instance, can a greater society do things “out of love” for its citizenry, and retract them just as quickly because it has later fallen “out of love”?  Politics aside, the wide pendulum of policymakers tinkering with an employee’s benefits can make a difference for the individuals impacted.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that it becomes necessary to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether “out of love” in the first sense, or from the perspective of the Federal Agency or the Postal Service who once thought of the Disability Retirement applicant as the paragon of the great worker but has now fallen “out of love” in the second sense — the necessity of filing for FERS Disability Retirement is a reality that must be faced.

We all have to contend with misapprehensions of motives and intentions; of gossip and people talking about the personal affairs of others whom they barely know. Supervisors, coworkers, and all of those who make judgments in an offhanded way — that is not what should be the primary concern of the Federal or Postal employee who files for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Instead, whatever the motivation — of a system which allows for an early medical retirement “out of love” or of a Federal Agency or Postal Service which has fallen “out of love” with an employee — the primary focus should be upon one’s own health, and to take care of one’s self “out of love”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Retirement for Mental or Physical Incapacity: Except, in real life…

Isn’t that the refrain that dampens?  Whether for a child or a young adult who still possesses and retains the enthusiasm of the possible, we pour cold water upon such unfettered energy for the future yet undeclared by saying, “Except, in real life…”.  Of course, what is inserted to replace the ellipses is the clincher that determines the mood of the response.  Is it: “Except, in real life, that never happens.” Or — “Except, in real life, you’ll be broke and devastated.”

Why is it that the unspoken elongation implied by the ellipses must by necessity include a negative ending?  When have you ever heard, instead: “Except, in real life, it’s all the better!”  Is it because our creative imagination reaches far beyond what is possible in the stark reality of “real life”?

Is the universe imagined of greater potentiality than the reality of daily existence, and is that why the virtual reality of Social Media, “the Web”, interactive video games and the like are so sultry in their seductive pose — because they invite you into a world which promises greater positives than the discouraging reality of our existence in “real” time?  Is that what is the ultimate dystopian promise — a caustic alternative to Marx’s opium for the masses: not of religion, but of an alternative good that has been set up that not only promises good beyond the real good, but provides for good without consequences?

The problem is that, whatever alternative good or virtual reality that is purportedly set up to counter the reality of real time, is itself nothing more than “real life”.  It is just in our imagination that it exists as an alternative universe.  This brings up the issue of language games as espoused by Wittgenstein, as to the “reality” of an “objective world” as opposed to the one expounded by linguistic conveyances: Take the example of the blind man who has never flown a plane.  He (or she) can answer every aeronautical questions with as much technical accuracy as an experienced pilot. Query: Between the 2, is there a difference of experiencing “reality”?

For Wittgenstein, the answer is no.  Yet, the laughing cynic will ask the ultimate question: Who would you rather have as your pilot for the next flight — the blind man who has never “really flown” a plane, or the experienced pilot?

That becomes the clincher: “Except in real life…”.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who suffers 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 tendency and proclivity towards taking a dim perspective of life can be overwhelming, especially when one is dealing with the debilitating consequences of a medical condition.

Yet, it is important to maintain a balance between the cynic’s world view (that the cup is always half empty) and the eternal optimist’s myopic standard that the glass is always half full.  “Except in real life,” doesn’t always favor the former; for the Federal employee who must go up against the behemoth of OPM in filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, “real life” is not necessarily the exception, but can be the rule of a successful outcome if you are guided by an experienced attorney.

Sincerely,

Robert R.McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement from Federal and Postal Jobs: Inconsistency and specificity

The two legal standards dominant in a Federal Disability Retirement case must often be alternatively applied depending upon the nature of the positional duties involved.  It may be appropriate to speak in terms of “functional capacities” and specified duty restrictions when it comes to physical work that involves descriptive mechanical work — i.e., being able to lift a certain amount (for most Postal employees, up to 70 pounds); bend, lift, stand repetitively throughout the day; or even in climbing ladders, remaining balanced while working on a scaffold; utilizing power tools, etc.

For more cognitive-intensive, focus-driven administrative/executive positions that require sustained and sedentary periods of consistent application, the more generalized standard as pronounced in Henderson v. OPM may be better argued — one of inconsistency and incompatibility between the job duties as a whole because of the cognitive dysfunctioning that results from the high distractibility of pain, lethargy from Major Depressive Disorder or paralyzing panic attacks from Generalized Anxiety Disorder, etc.

Or, take the work engaged by an Air Traffic Control Specialist — there is an admixture of the “inconsistency standard” as well as “specific” elements where sustained focus and concentration is reliant upon the safety and lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

The two legal standards in a Federal Disability Retirement case are not mutually exclusive, and they need not be argued so before the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and beyond, at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

Medical conditions need to be described in a “nexus-form” to the positional demands of a Federal or Postal job, for ultimately that is what a Federal or Postal employee who is filing for FERS Disability Retirement benefits is retiring from — a position description, and not necessarily the actual job that one is working at.

The disabling medical condition that the Federal or Postal employee is suffering from may both be inconsistent and possess descriptive specificity which require restrictions; and, conversely, it may be that certain elements of one’s Federal or Postal position description may require restrictions, leading to the conclusion that the position as a whole is inconsistent with the suffered medical conditions precisely because of the specific, 1-to-1 ratio of “essential element” to “identified medical condition.”

Thus can both standards be argued and used as a sword against OPM”s argument that “specific elements” need to be shown in each and every case, which is simply NOT the case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Postal & Federal Disability Attorney

 

Attorney for Federal Disability Retirement Claims: Of myths and unicorns

We too often consider myths and unicorns as those ancient stories based upon an error in analysis of transcendental or metaphysical concerns; that, somehow those “old folks from the past” (you know, the Celts, the Druids, the Normans and Romans and all of those other funny-sounding names once remembered for multiple-choice tests but otherwise lumped together as so many knights in shining armor with large red crosses painted across their chests) just didn’t understand the laws of the universe, Newtonian Physics or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (even though we ourselves, or most of us, barely comprehend even the surface of such conceptual constructs), and that through misapprehension of the underlying “scientific” principles that were yet undiscovered or unrecognized, our sophistication in modernity can easily dismiss those beliefs of yore, of myths and unicorns.

But of our own myths and unicorns, of course, we can justify, though we cast away objective truth by a mere dismissive wave of the hand with certainty within the insularity of our own opinions, and declare dead the Platonic Forms or Aristotelian logic that once dominated the Western sector of the universe, and thereby cling to the very myths and unicorns we have created, though new and refreshing they may be or seem.

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, it is important to distinguish between myths (i.e., those stories of the ancients that are told around bonfires and sacramental declarations in the corridors of echoing halls), unicorns (those folklore creatures still believed to be in existence by some, like hobbits and gnomes) and The Law (that funny creature that creeps about in the dark recesses of doubtful minds, that somehow governs the day to day activities of most, and for the particular Federal or Postal employee who must consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement, some specific application to protect one’s rights).

Before you begin the process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement, know The Law by consulting with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law so that you do not mistake the misapprehension of the universe of Federal and Postal actions like so many myths and unicorns that yet pervade among us.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer Representation for Federal Disability Retirement Claims: The image we hold

What picture do we carry?  No, not in one’s pocket or wallet, but in the eye of one’s mind.  Is it one that has been frozen in time; an imprint from a bygone era, a specific day in one’s past where childhood memories once floated upon a cloud of dreams and wishes?  Or, is it of more recent vintage – wrapped in layers of cynicism and denied opportunities, huddled in a corner where bitterness, wrongs and outrages of blames and byproducts of what others have “done” have emasculated and left that image we hold with disdain and dank disgust?

Where we are in life, at what stage we find ourselves; often, how we act and engage the world depends upon the image we hold of ourselves.  It is, after all, the one person whom we have no idea about.

Oh, yes, we try and fool ourselves by claiming to know ourselves better than any other, and we do this because we are the only ones who have access to that “inner” soul that speaks soliloquys and bitter asides when we believe no one else is listening.  But that is merely a subjective understanding of a subject that lives in the world of pure subjectivity; it is not, after all, an “objective” perspective and assessment of who we are.  For that, we must turn a dispassionate eye in reverse-form upon the image we hold of ourselves.

In the end, are we anything more than the aggregate of a language we have learned, and the very usage of the language we have acquired, the sense-impressions we have encountered and the image we hold – is it any more or less than what others have of ourselves?

That is why, in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it is important to have a greater sense of who we are when we write that “Statement of Disability” on SF 3112A.  For, SF 3112A requests certain and specific information about one’s self, the nexus between one’s medical condition and the impact upon one’s positional capabilities and essential elements of one’s job.

But the narrative we write should have a certain sense of objectivity about it, precisely because it is going to be some “other” person who will be reading it, assessing it and evaluating the sincerity and persuasive impact of the delineated discourse.

From that perspective, the image we hold of ourselves can be an impediment, precisely because it may not be an objective viewpoint, but one wrapped in the perspective of pain, turmoil, anger and despair, which is understandable, taking the medical condition into account.  Perhaps, an advocate who has a more “objective” perspective – like a lawyer who is well versed in Federal Disability Retirement law — might be of some assistance in the process.  Just a thought.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: Epochal Dawns

There are those momentous events in life which we mark and memorialize; and, in the end, whether the cumulative bag of goodies amounts to a positive aggregate, or a negation of sorrows, we determine in the quietude of private thoughts.  Avoidance of future uncertainty is a talent wrought only by humans; for animals of other species, they cannot afford such luxuries, as survival in the here and now constitutes reality of future causality.

For us, there is today; tomorrow will take care of itself within the constructs of fear, angst and uncertainty; and as Heidegger would have it, the projects we savor are the ones which delay thoughts of tomorrow, death, and the certainty of extinction.

What are those epochal dawns?  For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Workers, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it can include the advent of a medical condition.  In the beginning, in retrospect, perhaps it was of minor consequence; left as merely an afterthought, a nagging pain, or perhaps a singular moment of sudden urgency.  But the chronicity of life often parallels the longevity of a condition, and what was once a mere quibble may have turned into that momentous event.

Medical conditions belong in the bag of goodies set aside as “negatives”; and it may well lead to the necessity of considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Avoidance of the issue will not switch the bag of goodies from the negative to the positive; but once that decision is made to file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, it is up to each Federal and Postal employee to determine whether the future course of events — that “hereafter” and “post-disability retirement life” — will mean that there is yet a future of positives, and not merely a reverberation of past negatives.

And what of that “epochal dawn”?  It remains so only if the event itself stays in a motionless rut of stagnation, like those old films of a dying carcass stuck in the mud of a scorching desert sky, where the vultures of a future abyss fly above, waiting for their pick of tenderloin.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement Law: Sifting

Life requires sifting through a sieve; otherwise, the unwanted and undesirable particles of coarseness and garbage will become part and parcel of the component of one’s daily living.

Have you ever watched how the screen picks up, prevents and protects against intruding contaminants attempting to interlope?  How dust sticks to likeness and filth collects upon kindred spirits?  Are we talking about particles and contaminants — or of humans by analogy and metaphor?  Those descriptions which fit the picture frame of sifting screens can certainly apply to life’s encounter with fellow humans; how we change filters, when, and to what degree, applies to human interaction, as well.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who engage the bureaucratic process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement through one’s agency, and ultimately with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is often a metaphorical sifting process which applies beyond changing the filter of one’s heating and cooling system.

It involves the prioritizing of important and significant issues; of whether work should prevail over health; of recognizing true friends and colleagues, of those who show loyalty beyond one’s contribution to the workforce and reveal an empathetic soul when needed; of securing future needs and differentiating between that which is necessary as opposed to sufficient; and in the end, of crystallizing human relationships, where the refractory nature of family, friendships and filial fondness may flower with a collage of hues and colors bending with the corridors of time.

Does all of that occur with merely filing for Federal Disability Retirement?  It is a difficult process, evolving through the origination of a medical condition, and it is often the time when triumph treasures the tragedy of origins, and where sifting of life’s undesirable particles begins.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

The Devaluation of the Federal Employee with Disabilities

Countries engage it deliberately with its currencies; economic circumstances force it based upon fluctuating market volatility; and the basic principles in capitalism of supply and demand will often expect it.

Currencies are never stable indexes despite the best attempts by countries to manage and control their economies; the fact is, in this interconnected world of global economic entanglement, devaluation of worth can occur overnight, just after the soft breathing of nightfall overtakes, but before the dawn of first light when the halls of stock markets in faraway colonnades lined in symmetrical facades open their doors for the business of commodity markets.

Fortunes can be made, and lost, overnight; but the devaluation of that which implicates worth, can just as easily fall upon the human soul.  Medical conditions tend to do that.  We exchange, trade, value and appraise based upon a commodity’s supply, demand, desire and greed of want; but when it comes to human beings, though we deny such callous approaches, the encounter with such baseness still prevails.

For the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker, facing devaluation is nothing out of the ordinary when a medical condition hits.  Once the Federal or Postal worker suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, the avenue of choices becomes starkly clear:  One can try to hang on; one can walk away with nothing to show for those many years of dedicated and loyal service; or one can file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

It is the last of the tripartite alternatives which is the best option, and one which can secure a future for the Federal or Postal employee.  For, ultimately, the whole point of devaluation in paradigms of economic theory, is to stabilize the currency for future years; it is the experience of short-term suffering to attain long-term calm.  Economics is merely a microcosmic reflection of a macro-global perspective, and application of parallel principles are relevant to situations which might otherwise appear foreign.

Federal agencies and the U.S. Postal Service engage in devaluation, just as governments do, when the worth of the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker is seen in terms of productivity for the moment, and not for the long-term benefit gained for the future.

We live in a world of short selling trades; everything is seen for the immediacy of gain; but fortunately for the Federal or Postal worker who must contend with the attitude and approach of a Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service in viewing the devaluation of the worker based upon productivity, the option of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM is one which is available, attractive, and allowable for those who are eligible to prepare, formulate and file for the benefit.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire