CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Stuck in Time

Each of us embraces an era, a period, a slice of time with which we relate to, have fond remembrances of, or for whatever quirky reasons, possess an affinity or attachment to.   Perhaps it is the Fifties, with its stodgy reputation for conventionalism; or the radicalization of the Sixties; via music, movements, political upheavals or cultural phenomena, certain time periods seem to have a hold upon people, depending upon personalities, upbringing, backgrounds and interests.

There is nothing wrong with such creative time travels; it is a recreational endeavor of which we all engage; of watching movies, about which we read books; or even some will don a piece of clothing, such as a bow tie or a style of shoes.   Enjoying a time period can be a soothing leisure activity, often without being conscious of the affinity and connections itself; but it is when we become stuck in time, that problems arise.

That is often how a medical condition pivots a person; unexpectedly and unpreparedly, a chronic, progressively deteriorating medical condition will freeze a person’s family, career, goals and aspirations in a period of time, unable to get unstuck or have the flexibility and options necessary for forward movement or progress.

For Federal and Postal employees, the alternative of filing for and obtaining Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS, allows for the potential capacity to become unstuck again.

Imaginary time travel, for purposes of recreational activities, can be an enjoyable past time; but when one becomes stuck in time involuntarily and through unforeseen circumstances, getting stuck in time becomes a pathway of unforgiving proportions which must be maneuvered out of.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: Memories

Memories induce a peculiar phenomena; by expunging them, we can perhaps sidestep sadness and loss.  With them, we are left with a lasting image of who we were, who we are, and who we have become, with a hope for recovery when we have lost our “place in society”.

Illness and disability often perverts our memories; the suffering person will often have a misplaced and skewed memory of the person he or she once was.

For the Federal or Postal Worker who is experiencing and undergoing the trauma of a medical condition, such that the medical condition impacts one’s ability to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job, it is often the pervasive memory of a time past, which continues to impede a necessary present course of action.  But before one gets to a critical point of crisis management, it is important to engage a realistic assessment of one’s present circumstances, and determine one’s future course of actions, and not be diverted by the memories of one’s past glory days.

Federal Disability Retirement is a benefit accorded to all Federal and Postal Workers who have the minimum eligibility criteria met (18 months for those under FERS; 5 years for those under CSRS), and should be looked upon as part of one’s total employment benefits, to be utilized when needed.

It is a benefit which must be ultimately submitted to, and approved by, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Consider the future; let not memories of past days confound the need to take direct and proper actions today; for, in the end, there will time to reflect and remember in future days to come.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Precision & Wiggle Room

In every legal writing and oral argument, there is an appropriate time and context for precision, and times when wide discretion must be used in allowing for additional evidence and argument to remain effective.  Recognizing and identifying which approach must be applied is the first step to effective advocacy; maintaining the flexibility when appropriate, and constraining the precision for all sides, is often a key to winning.

For Federal Disability Retirement law, whether under FERS or CSRS, the key in applying the applicable case-law, the meaning of the ruling of the court or administrative issuance, while keeping open and flexible the statement of one’s disability, is an important part of the entire process.

To “paint oneself into a corner” in one’s Statement of Disability is often a problem, where subsequent medical conditions arise but one cannot supplement or support such conditions because one was inappropriately precise (or unduly succinct) in the descriptive narrative of one’s statement; or, conversely, being vague about the importance, relevance or applicability of a certain holding in a precedent-setting case; these are all mistakes which should be avoided.

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement case, submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the context often drives the content; where precision is called for, technical knowledge must be applied and the terms of art must be inserted; where linguistic flexibility is required, the artful weaving of wiggle room must be allowed, in order for the air to circulate, and for the chameleon of appearance to change as circumstances require.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Gargantuan Bureaucracy

Gargantuan; Leviathan-like; Mammoth; Elephantine; such descriptive words at once describe and simultaneously belie the true nature of an entity, especially when it comes to an administrative bureaucracy at the Federal Government level.  Agencies are organic structures, made up of micro-entities (i.e., people), divided into sections which operate within an infrastructure of larger branches, some of which are essential to the direction of the organism, others which are peripheral but still serve a minor purpose.

Thus, a Federal Agency can be likened to the human body; certain “parts” can be severed without doing mortal harm (a toe or a finger, perhaps); other organs are vital to the very survival of the living organism.  Within that large structural entity lives and breathes the multiplicity of components which make up the composite whole.  Because of the sheer size, it is advisable to retain evidence of anything which has been forwarded or sent in for consumption by the beast.

Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement case, whether under the CSRS or  FERS system, the normal course of business in encountering the U.S. Office of Personnel Management should include the ability to show that a vital piece of information was sent and can be verified that it was sent.

Receipt is another matter.  Once a beast consumes its prey, it is difficult enough to try and reach down its throat to see if it made its way into the proper digestive system.  All that one can show is that it was fed; whether and how it was received is often known only by the burp of satisfaction echoing from the winding corridors of an endless maze.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
OPM Disability Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Mechanization, Automation & the Lull of Conformity

Locke and Rousseau both recognized the necessity of the individual human being to enter into civil society in order to escape the theoretical “state of nature” for self-preservation, and once within, conformity to societal norms and orderly constructs became a natural force in the progressive evolution of civilization. But social order need not mandate conformity of a thoughtless drone or loss of creativity.

The term itself — “drone” — is an interesting one. For, in its general usage, it meant a sense of drudgery or monotony; or, in a specific sense, a male, stingless honeybee which produced no honey, and thus a less-than-full entity; and in more recent usage, a non-human, destructive craft, devoid of thought or moral compass.

Social conformity which gave rise to automation and industrial mechanization, has produced a populace given to thoughtless action.  Such conformity, perhaps, is useful; for in a world requiring bureaucratic patience, one is left with no other choice but to wait upon a long and onerous administrative process.

For the Federal or Postal employee who must submit to the long, bureaucratic process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS or CSRS, the conformity to standard forms, the patience required for the long wait, and the necessity to comply to the rules governing eligibility, legal standards, etc., is part and parcel of the social structure.  We are trained to comply; and with no other choice but to go to the singular Federal Agency, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is best to try and prevail in the most effective and efficient manner possible, inasmuch as there really is no other choice in the matter.

Locke and Rousseau were right; self-preservation requires the escape from the state of nature; what we are left with, is the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — the penultimate reflection of a civilized and advanced society.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: Timing the Legal Tools

In any administrative procedure, the use of legal tools and citations may be of limited efficacy for the process itself; it is, however, building a foundation for future application, and to that extent it provides a fair warning to the agency.

Inasmuch as any portion of obtaining an entitlement or meeting an eligibility requirement engages the applicant with a faceless bureaucracy — and one which recognizably is filled with non-lawyers, clerks, etc. — there is always the question as to why an attorney is necessary at the administrative level of adjudication.

The reason is simple:  the non-lawyer governmental worker, while perhaps not fully appreciative of the legal citations which may be argued in a particular case, is nevertheless aware of the consequences of failing to acknowledge the validity of such references.  Being audited and finding that a particular case worker has a high percentage of cases denied, then reversed on an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, has an impact upon the agency worker.

Furthermore, building a foundation for future reference before an Administrative Judge — where the Judge turns to the agency’s representative and asks, “Well, how about Case X, which has already been cited by the Appellant?” — can be quite effective and often short-cuts the entire process.

For Federal and Postal Workers who are attempting to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the effective use of legal tools and citations is crucial at all levels — if only to warn OPM of the consequences of having to go before an MSPB Judge for further adjudication of the case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Worker Disability Retirement: The Problem of Conformity as a Thoughtless Process

The bureaucratization of society becomes a problem when conformity to a standardized process results in thoughtless action.  We have all seen scenes from movies, or read stories or books, of the proverbial drone-like monologue, shown in cinematographic hues in monotony, of emotionless workers who robotically stamp papers and call out, “Next!”.

To some extent, preparing and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, requires such conformity.  The standard forms themselves (SF 2801 series for CSRS employees; SF 3107 series for FERS employees; and for both CSRS and FERS employees, SF 3112 series) require a foundation of such conformity.  And while continuation sheets and attachments are not prohibited (yes, the double-negative in grammar means that it is a positive, and you may do what is proposed), it is nevertheless constraining when one is putting together a Federal Disability Retirement application.

On the other hand, standardization provides for uniformity and ease of information.  If everyone just submitted his or her own version of selective information and sent it in to OPM, there would be greater chaos than there already is at the singular agency which processes all Federal Disability Retirement applications.

Thus, conformity to standardized procedures can be a good thing.  The problem, however, is when such conformity leads to thoughtlessness — and, in a Federal Disability Retirement process, one should expect to encounter such bureaucratic mindlessness.  This, too, must be dealt with; and sometimes the need to use legal authorities as a sword, and not merely as a shield, is the only way of effectuating a required response.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Approaching the Entrance to OPM’s Thought Process

The attempt to predict an opponent’s approach in an endeavor — whether in competitive sports; in debate; in an adversarial forum — is a practice which can have favorable results, or one which ends with disastrous consequences.  For the prediction itself must be based upon known factors, such as the applicable standards which the opponent will rely upon, relevant elements which will be utilized, and human, unpredictable quirks which seem to always come into play.

In approaching an opponent, it is always a good idea to study the opposition; but too much reliance upon attempting to out-maneuver the opposition can have the negative impact of taking away from valuable preparation-time one may need in order to prevail.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, many Federal and Postal applicants attempt to analyze the questions posed on the Standard Forms (SF 3107 series for FERS employees; SF 2801 series for CSRS employees; SF 3112 series for both FERS & CSRS employees) perhaps too deeply, in attempting to “understand” the opponent — the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Yes, the questions must be analyzed; yes, there is an implicit trickiness to many of the questions (especially on SF 3112A); and, yes, a cautious approach must be taken in answering the questions.  But such caution should never detract from spending the necessary time in preparing the crux and foundation of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application — that of formulating the logical nexus between one’s medical condition and the positional duties which one can no longer perform.

Ultimately, the substance of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application must be given the greatest of focus and effort:  attempting to approach the opponent’s thought processes — in this case, that of the “collective” efforts of multiple individuals at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — may be an act of futility; better to spend the needed hours solidifying one’s own case than to try and understand an incomprehensible entity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Flexibility in a Plan

“What is the game plan?”  That is the question which, when posed, is evidence that one recognizes that engagement in an activity or process should have a logistical and strategic paradigm from which to proceed.

Such an overarching plan need not be a formally drawn, meticulously detailed one; it can be fairly general in its guideposts, with some specificity in milestones.  But to formulate a plan which is discernibly comprehensible is an important first step before initiating any process, whether legal, recreational or otherwise.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the plan of action is important to the overall administrative facet, if only to respond to outside pressures which will almost certainly prevail upon the Federal or Postal employee — from one’s agency; from the financial pressures which will continue to remain a factor; from the ongoing medical condition itself.

Yet, within any “game plan” or “master plan”, one must also figure in a necessary component of flexibility.  Just as the future is never a certainty or a predictable development, so changes in a process where one is attempting to file for a benefit will often incur and involves unforeseen changes and malleable circumstances.

An unseen event or trigger, however, does not necessarily mean that one cannot proceed; it merely require the ability to circumvent the obstacle, if indeed it is an obstacle at all.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal OPM Disability Retirement: Answering the Question Is Merely the Beginning

The question itself is obviously the starting point; however, whether answering the question is enough, presents a greater problem.

In any arena of law, the wider context of legal requirements will include the statutory authority upon which regulations and standard governmental forms are based upon; then, there are case-law opinions of judges — in the area of Federal Disability Retirement, this would include the administrative opinions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, both at the Hearing level, as well as from a Petition for Full Review; and further, Court opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, one must obviously complete multiple Standard Forms. Chief among the forms is the “Applicant’s Statement of Disability“, or otherwise identified as SF 3112A.  There are multiple questions requesting information about one’s medical condition and the impact upon one’s ability/inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.  The questions may seem straightforward enough; the answers can be; but the greater conundrum is whether completion of answers to such questions will be adequate in proving, by a preponderance of the evidence (which is the legal standard in meeting the adequacy of proof in a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS or CSRS) one’s eligibility for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

It is precisely because there is a greater context of legal expansion in the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement, that merely answering the questions represents a beginning point.  In other words, we meet head-on the age-old distinction between that which is necessary, as opposed to what constitutes sufficiency in order to satisfy the criteria.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire