CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Refinements

One often hears of a “refined” or “cultured” person; such a description often provokes an image of one who has had the leisure time in order to engage in the arts and of higher society; and the word itself leaves connotations of perfecting the rough edges of a person, thing or work.  But if the focus of one’s efforts is upon refinement at the outset, then there is the danger that the core of the focus will not have been adequately worked upon.

Refinements should come only after the essence of a work has been produced, just as leisure time should be enjoyed only after one has completed the necessary work.  Refinements should not be the focus of one’s attention if the centrality and essence of the issue is not first attended to; and so it is with all things in life.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to focus upon creating, formulating and producing an excellent Statement of Disability; expending the effort to obtain an effective medical report; promulgating the applicable legal arguments which support the substantive underpinning one’s Federal Disability Retirement application.

Refinements can be made; but such a focus should only be engaged once the core essence of a case has been formulated.  Leisure time is just that — only after the essence of a case has been attended to.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: In a Perfect World & Secondary Constructs

In a perfect world, one can propose a hypothetical construct where efficiency of service occurs without thought; where administrative processes are available without glitches or unforeseen hazards; and where the workplace environment is daily supportive and sensitive to the needs of injured and disabled workers.  But of course the corollary of such a construct is that, if indeed a perfect world existed, then much of the world which is established to combat, prevent and counteract the imperfect world would have no need to exist.

It is similar to the problem of those in philosophy who attempt to argue as follows:  How do we know that the world before us is not merely a dream? The answer:  The very reason why we can distinguish between dreams and reality, is presumably because we must first acknowledge the reality of the world; dreams are secondary; the mistake we make is when we make that which is primary into a secondary construct.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the Federal and Postal employee who is engaging the services of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management should be well aware that they are not entering a perfect world.  This is a world of administrative nightmares; of expected denials and delays; and further, a world which is neither sensitive to, nor recognizably aware of, the underlying human suffering which accompanies each and every Federal Disability Retirement packet.

Further, in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement case, it is important to keep the essential elements of a Federal Disability Retirement application in a streamlined, focused presentation; otherwise, if you present the argument as a dream-like world, you will get a return response in a nightmarish fashion.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: The Essence of the Case

Ultimately, the “essence” of a thing is defined by a multitude of characteristics; but when a query is made as to what X “is”, as opposed to what it is “not”, the attempt to describe X is almost always rendered inadequate or deficient.  It is not enough to say that X is “not A, B or C”, for it may be equally true that Y is also not A, B or C, and yet X is not identical to Y.  

When an individual asks the unanswerable question, How does one successfully apply for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management? — the answer cannot be formulated by delineating a list of don’ts (although that may be helpful in a great majority of cases).  Rather, the reason why such a question is untenable, aside from being too generalized a question, is that each particular case requires a different and unique set of answers.  

Yes, there are general applicability standards which one must follow (i.e., sufficient medical documentation; knowledge of the relevant laws; an understanding of the legal concepts involved, etc.).  Yes, there are standard forms to complete (SF 3107 series FERS employees; SF 2801 series for CSRS employees; SF 3112 series for both FERS & CSRS employees) — but how they are completed, and the information provided, must be carefully formulated.  How one puts together a Federal Disability Retirement case is just as important in getting at the essence of a Federal Disability Retirement case, than trying to figure out the different components which make up a case.  

The “essence” of a thing is a sought-after jewel which has been an ongoing event throughout Western Philosophy, from Plato and Aristotle, to Heidegger and Husserl; it has only been in recent years that such a search has merely turned into a Wittgensteinian language game; and with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, perhaps it is proper that it has become so.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: These Economic Times

Do outside influences other than “the law” impact upon benefits applied for?  Depending upon what particular perspective one has, the human animal can be characterized as either extremely simple, or supremely complex.  In comparison to other animals, one needs to only look at the vast civilization of architectural magnificence, artistic beauty, and acts of compassion and empathy, to arrive at the latter conclusion.  But human nature often overrules the complex beauty of such accomplishments, leaving one with the unmistakeable conclusion of the former.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, one must proceed and assume such an application based upon the legal criteria as applied, and expect a fair and impartial review based upon the statutory implementation of such rules and regulations.

But in these economic times…   Does the Federal Government want to limit the number of applicants approved (the unspoken “quota” argument)?  Is there an underlying motive other than medical reasons, as to why the Federal or Postal employee is filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits (OPM’s suspicions)?  Do “unofficial policies from on high” ever apply?

Such questions and concerns are often asked, but ultimately they are irrelevancies.  For, in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from OPM, one must move forward regardless, and put together the best case possible, based upon the evidence one has.

Any other approach, or becoming unduly concerned with collateral issues, will only detract and distract from the essence of a Federal Disability Retirement case.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: Beware the Layman

Federal employee attorneys create and manufacture a parallel universe of statutory interpretation, legal argumentation, case-law citations, and extrapolations from esoteric provisions in arguing the “finer points” of law.  Thus, it is a temptation for the lay person — the “non-lawyer” — to attempt to borrow from cases and take a stab at citing case-law and statutory authority in trying to garner support for his or her Federal Disability Retirement application.  In taking on a case at the Reconsideration Stage or the Merit Systems Protection Board, I have the opportunity to read some of the “legal arguments” which non-lawyers have attempted to make.  While many such arguments are valid, some (i.e., too many) mis-cite the law, and often fail to understand and proffer the substantive import of what the cases are saying.  On top of it all, I suspect that the Office of Personnel Management gets a bit annoyed when a non-lawyer applicant attempts to preach the law to another non-lawyer OPM Representative.  A word to the wise:  let lawyers entertain themselves in the parallel universe of the law; let the doctors render their medical opinions; let the non-lawyers make the best arguments possible, in layman’s language. 

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Federal Disability Retirement: The Danger of Situational Disability

The danger of falling into the trap of situational disability, which is one of a number of reasons for denying a disability retirement application, can come about quite regularly. Especially because, in the face of contending with a medical disability that is serious enough to warrant changing one’s career, of filing for medical disability retirement — there is often the Agency’s contentious response, of needing to have the continuity of the work accomplished, of being insensitive and lacking compassion for the applicant; in such a context, the applicant views the Agency’s response as hostile.

The employee/applicant, then, in filing for disability retirement, will often make the mistake of focusing upon the hostile work environment, or the lack of compassion and empathy on the part of the Agency — and this will often warrant a denial of disability retirement based upon the medical condition of the applicant as being “situational disability” — meaning that the medical condition of the employee/applicant is limited to the work situation of that particular office or agency. This is a completely wrong-headed approach for the applicant.

That is why, when I represent my clients, I am singularly focused upon the 2 or 3 main issues that form the essence of a disability retirement case, and insist upon focusing my clients upon those very same issues, while setting aside those tangential issues which can ultimately defeat a disability retirement application. Understand that these peripheral, tangential issues may well be “important” to my client — but I would not be doing my job in representing my clients if I allowed the peripheral issues to become “front and center” — for that would be a disaster for my clients. I represent people to obtain disability retirement benefits. That is my job. That is my focus. If I allow my focus to waiver, then I am not representing my clients properly.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire