OPM Disability Retirement Denial: The Middle Stage

It is like those siblings who are “in between”; of caught in relevance and significance by being squeezed on the one side by the “giant first one”, and on the other side by an even greater presence; and, somehow, the middle stage is lost and forgotten.  Is that how life itself is viewed, as well?  Of being cooed and oohed over the baby-years, and then forgotten once the younger sister comes into the family; or of being cast aside by children in their teenage years, then suddenly realizing that time lost can never be regained, but recognizing that one’s parents now are too old to appreciate?

Is that why the “Middle Ages” are viewed as irrelevant, stuck between the “Ancient Era” of the great Roman and Greek periods, and then suddenly skipped over into the Renaissance and into modernity?

The “Middle Stage” is like the Middle Age years — of being present but quickly fading; of being there but barely noticed; of shying away and fearing the next stage because the one before was so full of energy and the disappointment of the failures of the previous stage is merely a foresight into the fearful expectations of the next.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition now prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the “Middle Stage” is called the “Reconsideration Stage” of the administrative process.

The Reconsideration Stage is the stage where the Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application has been denied at the Initial Stage, and it is the Stage before the Third Stage — an appeal to the U.S.Merit Systems Protection Board.  It is not a stage to be “overlooked” — as some inevitability of a further denial — but one which provides for an opportunity to enhance and add to one’s Federal Disability Retirement application by providing additional medical and other documentation in order to obtain an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

If the applicant decided to forego consulting with an attorney at the Initial Stage of the Federal Disability Retirement process, then it is a good time to consider contacting an attorney at the “Middle Stage” — the Reconsideration Stage of the process — to discuss the next and crucial steps in order to correct any past mistakes and affirmatively assert the proper legal basis in meeting the preponderance of the evidence criteria in your quest to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits from OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Retirement for Mental or Physical Incapacity: Fear and trepidation

The first may lead to the second; the second, exacerbating the first, may establish a vicious cycle where fear is feeding the trepidation and the trepidation continues to exponentially increase the fear because non-action only expands the tension that grows without containment or restriction.  It is, indeed, a conundrum of paralysis; and the will to change, alter or modify necessitates action, but action cannot come before fear is vanquished and trepidation is overcome.

This is a dysfunctional society.  There is a lack of stability, and perhaps the instability is as a result of the greater freedoms and liberties enjoyed.  But where a culture and society are founded upon unfettered liberty, there must be some internal mechanism that contains the extent of choices offered and the pathways opened.

Once upon a time, ice cream flavors numbered within the fingers of a hand, or perhaps both hands; but once the Pandora’s box of alternatives was unleashed, the paralysis that follows betrays the fragile nature of a human psyche.  Fear and trepidation go hand-in-hand precisely because it is an insular, self-contained cycle of self-immolation feeding each upon the other.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition is beginning to prevent the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of his or her job, it is understandable that fear and trepidation continue to paralyze any movement away from a career that has been invested with such high costs.  The choices here, however, are limited. You can stay put; walk away and abandon; or file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  It is the last option which is normally the most viable, the most vibrant and the one to pursue because it protects and preserves the future security of one’s livelihood.

Do not let fear and trepidation paralyze and overwhelm; a consultation with an experienced attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law is often the first best step in moving forward.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement under FERS & CSRS: Where we are

Wherever we are, we believe that is where the focal point of life resides.  Yes, it is a truism that the wider the travels, the greater recognition that one’s life is relatively insignificant, and that there are others in distant places where greater importance and relevance is objectively established.

But the subjective, human perspective cannot ultimately abandon the compass of where we are; for, it is the center of the compass itself that controls the direction of the gravitational pull, and while the North Pole may be where the forces reside (including Santa, all of his elves and helpers, and presumably Rudolph and the offspring), the perspective of where the arrow points remains constant:  It is the I, where I am and what circumstances impact me (in whatever form the personal pronoun is enunciated).

Is it an inevitable perspective – this egoism of the subjective “I” from whence the world is viewed, around which swirls the universe that rotates, churns and erupts in unanticipated transcendentalism encompassing the universal karma denoting an insignificant place in the warped historicity of mankind?  Or, is it possible to have been brought up in a community where there is no word within the language game of the collective peoples that points back towards one’s self?

Thus, the “what if” game:  What if there is no personal pronoun?  What if the perspective embraces only some other, such that each views the importance of the other and the relative irrelevance of the one who perceives the other, such that there is no one but the ego in a reflection of a mirror pointing to someone else – would that make a difference, such that there would therefore be no personal possessiveness, neither in grammar nor in envious jealousies of owning that which is everyone else’s?  Can a person exist without being erased and stamped out, in a society where collectivism is constant and self-realization is an alien concept unable to be comprehended?

But that is not so; here, in modernity, there is but the subjective “I”, the royalty of self, and the self-importance of the fanfare where each and every one of us seeks and relishes the quarter hour of fame, now transformed into reality television shows and Selfies on an extension pole, or by min-drones hovering with a camera taking aim at every movement of our selfish worth.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who must prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, be cautious in determining “where” one “is” – for, an effective Federal Disability Retirement application can quickly become consumed by the subjective “I” in the narrative delineated in the Applicant’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A).

To be an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, there must by necessity contain and retain a certain sense of objectivity, tempered by the medical documentation and evidentiary compilation to be submitted.  Yes, yes – where we are is important in life, but remember always that where we are is only relevant from the vantage point of where we want to be tomorrow, and the day after that.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Government Employment: Chekhov’s gun

It is the ultimate principle of substantive minimalism, where extraneous and peripheral elements should be eradicated unless used, essential, or otherwise central to the narrative.  Teasing merely for the sake of itself is denied; a serious venture if always pursued, and open honesty with the audience forever relied upon.  Chekhov disdained and avoided the superfluous; his short stories and other works were paradigms of linguistic economy, where words were valued and cherished, without room left for an unused element.

Compare that to modernity; of Franzen and works where volumes are spoken to merely illustrate a simple point contrary to Ockham’s razor.  The “gun”, as the metaphor of utility or otherwise, first introduced in the first chapter or Scene I of a play, must by a few chapters hence or a scene or two later, be fired, pointed or struggled over; otherwise, never introduce it in the first place.  And of the razor of rational argumentation, the lex parsimoniae of scientific observation, let not human complexity and self-delusions of grandeur in constructing untenable principles of convoluted thought-processes cloud the simplicity of nature’s design; for, in the end, it is in the simple that complexity finds its apex, and of the complex, where simpletons gather.

In the end, economy of words allows for room of thought and invitations of acceptance; it is only in the crowded gallows of condemned men where cries for space echo into the chambers of unheard cries.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are in the process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the principle of Chekhov’s gun, or its correlative paradigm of linguistic economy, Ockham’s razor, should always be applied:  Keep to the centrality of one’s narrative, and never allow the teasing of an unloaded gun direct the masthead of a sinking ship to tip too perilously towards the unforgiving winds of want and self-importance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Government Employment: Of Karl Popper’s ‘World 3’

Karl Popper’s division of the world into three clean segments of definable universes was, on the one hand, quite controversial — especially as the esoteric world of philosophy had been steadily ‘progressing‘ towards pure materialism and scientism; and yet, on the other, self-evident to almost a simplistic, tautological fault.  Perhaps that is the very implication of profundity: it is that which appears so basic and elementary as to presuppose idiocy, but containing such inherent complexity as to remain beyond the reach of most.

In simple terms, the division of the world followed the classic lines of human history and linear development of evolutionary concordance: ‘World 1’ referred to the physical universe surrounding us; ‘World 2’, the purely psychological make-up of human beings, with a special concern to Popper concerning the internal pain and anguish which we feel; and of ‘World 3’ — that universe which is the subject of this short blog, the aggregate of human products and man’s creative injection into the world, comprised of art, literature, cars, buildings, customs and normative behavior, including dress, style, fashion, etc.

There is, of course, inevitable interaction and intersecting between the bifurcated ‘worlds’ — for example, a book of literature (say, Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye) would be both an object existing in ‘World 1’ as well as a product of human creativity from ‘World 3’. But note the peculiarity of the overlap, which makes for a unique phenomenological observation: Say you had 2 copies of the book, but one which was published in January, 2015, and another with the stated date of July, 1951.  Consider further the added element that in the latter edition, a scribble appears, which happens to be the autograph of the author.

From the perspective of Popper’s ‘World 1’, both objects would appear to be essentially identical — with the former intact, and the latter somewhat damaged because of the graffiti defiling a clean page.  However, from the vantage point of the person who possesses and ‘owns’ (a concept which would clearly belong to Popper’s ‘World 3’, as well) the autographed object, a sudden recognition of value, wealth and uniqueness would immediately attach — leaving aside intersecting points with ‘World 2’ involving envy, jealousy, awe and disbelief (which would be shared by the undersigned writer).  Thus do the various and variegated ‘worlds’ of Karl Popper posit for our study, agreement/disagreement, and further reflection.

Such division and segmentation of worlds and universes are often proposed merely for esoteric and pedantic purposes; of ivory tower conceptual constructs which have little to do with the day-to-day lives of ordinary human beings who struggle to make a living, maneuver through the complexity of the world, and attempt to survive the manipulative machinations of a society governed by microcosms of powerful but unnamed sources of evil and collusion.  But there is a recognizable worth and value to some of us, for pointing out the existence and demarcation of artifice as opposed to the natural environment from whence we came.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, such a bifurcation of the universe into clean segments of definable compartments, is to recognize that the complexity of the administrative and bureaucratic process encapsulating the entirety and aggregation of the process cumulatively entitled, “Federal Disability Retirement under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset”, is ultimately a product of Popper’s ‘World 3’, and not merely a nightmare emanating from the deep recesses of our troubled psychosis self-contained in ‘World 2’, but of an intersection between the universe of madness created by our own desire to further separate ourselves from the simplicity of ‘World 1’, from whence we came.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Social Contract Theory

In modernity, what is the “Social Contract”, and does it still hold any meaning?  Or, is the bundle of bureaucracy, the conflict between the competitive predatoriness of capitalism left to its own devices resulting in a cronyism of wealthy interconnections, as opposed to the growing girth of Federalism with a pittance and breadcrumbs left to State governments to fill in some minor gaps — does the aggregate of such entities, comprised of regulations, statutes, laws and a compendium of languages isolated in fine print, all together reflect the vestiges of the Social Contract we once revered as the awe-inspiring product of the Age of Enlightenment?

Would Rousseau, and to a lesser extent Hobbes, and further explained in Locke’s Treatise, represent anything of value, anymore?  Or are we left to our own devices, as Darwin proposed those many decades ago on the lapping shores of the Galapagos, where survivability is determined by genetic origin, environmental refinement, and ultimately the devices used in subterfuge when societal niceties require at least a surface semblance of genteel behavior?  In the end, the concept of a “Social Contract” means little if the basic legal constructs are not adhered to.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Workers, such legal constructs are represented by the cumulative promises made by the bureaucracy which employs them, comprised of statutes, regulations, executive orders and corollary mandates.  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 positional duties, the idea of honoring the Social Contract becomes important, because part of that agreement is to fairly treat the Federal or Postal employee when the Federal or Postal employee is no longer able, because of a medical condition, to continue working in the same job.

Preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is each day a test as to the continuing resolution of the viability of the Social Contract.  While not every Federal or Postal employee may be automatically eligible for the benefits to be received through Federal Disability Retirement, it is the fairness of the process which is important, and whether a proper course of administrative protocols are followed and met throughout the entirety of the bureaucratic process.

In the end, those vestiges of that grand idea originating in the minds of philosophers — the highfalutin concept of a Social Contract — are only as good as the promises made and declarations kept in the things that impact the everyday lives of ordinary people, like those dedicated public servants who toil daily in the Federal Sector and the U.S. Postal Service.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal & Federal Disability Retirement: Excision & Expiation

Sometimes, the former must be engaged in order to save the whole, lest the lesser segment spreads to infect the greater; while in different circumstances, of contexts involving spiritual offenses, the latter may suffice through acceptable acts of contrition or penance paid through rote words of sincere atonements.  In other instances, the act of the latter may account for the former, while the satisfaction through the former may be sufficient to complete the latter.

Excision is to surgically sever and remove, and then to discard and alienate from the body of which it was once a part; while expiation is to similarly remove, but which can still remain as a part of one’s history of misdeeds.  Both are acts engaged in for purposes of atonement beyond the present state of existential negativity.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who, despite the ongoing flagellation compounded by one’s Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service upon the aggregation of negativity impounded through one’s deteriorating medical condition, continue to endure the proverbial adage that when it rains, it pours, consideration should be given to filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

In many ways, filing for Federal Disability Retirement is tantamount to the duality of acts involving excision and expiation; for, like the former, approval of a Federal Disability Retirement annuity by OPM results in a separation from that very body of which the Federal or Postal employee was once a part of; and like the latter, it resolves the ongoing conflict and struggle between the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker, and the Federal entity or the U.S. Postal Service, in terms of work left undone, dissatisfaction because of lost time, excessive use of Sick Leave, or exhaustion of FMLA benefits, etc.

From the perspective of the Federal agency or the Post Office, excision is the preferred methodology, as the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service can then replace the separated employee with someone else.

From the perspective of the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker, the approval of a Federal Disability Retirement benefit amounts to an expiation of sorts, as rendering a benefit to make it all worthwhile, for the years of dedicated service and sacrifice given, and a recognition that those achievements and accomplishments have not been for naught, despite what the last remaining years where deteriorating health and progressively debilitating medical conditions wrought upon one’s reputation and employment relationships.

Excision and expiation; they are the dual forms of atonement for the Federal or Postal employee who takes the affirmative steps in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, when it becomes apparent that loss of physical or mental capacity in the face of impending health conditions is not a basis for surrendering to the inevitable vicissitudes of what life brings to the fore of man’s future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire