Federal Disability Retirement Law: The Bridge of Logic

In an era of idealism (a historical time slot which we are not presently experiencing), it may have been thought that the concept itself would bring greater harmony, world peace, empathy for the disabled, and a larger sense of community.

The Western, Aristotelian view of a “good life” involved the refusal to submit to extremes — whether of passions, beliefs, gluttony or feelings — and that moderation was the key to a balanced life, where the appetitive nature of man would be mastered by one’s intellect.  Bertrand Russell borrowed from this tradition, and defined the “good life” as one “inspired by love and guided by knowledge”, where the feelings and passions of a person would be constrained and directed by the bridge of logic.

The metaphorical play of a “bridge” — an image evoking a “connection” or a “nexus” — leading away from the natural passions inherent in Man, is an interesting one.  For, it somewhat presumes (A) a necessity and need for such a path leading away from the nature of Man, and (B) that somehow logic does not constitute and comprise the natural state of man, but is a needed addendum in order to “civilize” an otherwise unruly beast.

Perhaps that is so, and certainly in modernity the bridge of logic is in need of major repairs.

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 basic elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, make sure that the health condition itself — of the pain, of physical and psychological dysfunctioning resulting from the health condition — does not dominate in your persuasive argumentation in presenting your case to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Rather, the Bridge of Logic must be carefully employed — of the nexus between your medical condition and the essential elements of your positional duties.

Contact an experienced lawyer who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law, and don’t let the disrepair of modernity’s bridge of logic be the loss of a pathway necessary to connect the necessary eligibility requirements in an OPM Federal Disability Retirement filing.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill

Attorney exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

Federal Disability Attorney Help: Compartmentalizing

Human beings have a unique talent in performing such mental gymnastics; of placing certain issues in a psychological box for later reference; of limiting time and thought, bifurcating different hats to wear, variegated umbrellas to open up, etc.

It is often said that gender plays a role in this methodology of thought, and that the female species is less adaptable in performing such mental activities of compartmentalizing; but one can never be certain.  There are more than a good share of men who are unable to compartmentalize, and an even greater share of women who can.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows the Federal or Postal employee to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the art of compartmentalizing one’s life becomes impossible, because medical conditions are the one unique variant which prevents such mental gymnastics.

Medical conditions pervade and overwhelm; because of their impact, it cannot easily be “boxed up” or placed in a special drawer for later reference.  Rather, it is an insidious, indiscriminate purveyor of pain, grief and turmoil which refuses to be bifurcated or categorized.

When this becomes evident to the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from the “un-box-able” entity which refuses compartmentalization, contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in this field of law known as Federal Disability Retirement, and allow that disability attorney to be the one who takes the process of Federal Disability Retirement Law and compartmentalizes it for the proper and efficient preparation, formulating and filing of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, under FERS.

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 Disability Retirement Application: Denials for the Unrepresented

Why are denial letters issued to those Federal Disability Retirement applicants different in nature from those with legal representation?  Why should there be a difference in quality and content?  Why, indeed?

It is an “indication”, of course, of a lack of objectivity in how the U.S. Office of Personnel Management approaches cases.  For, the denial letter issued to an unrepresented individual is often characterized by language which makes it appear as if the person filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits “never had a chance”.  You were a fool to have even tried.  Your application has no merit and should be summarily dismissed!

On the other hand, a denial letter to an individual who is represented by an attorney often will point out some of the legitimate deficiencies; questions about lack of performance deficits; and a greater amount of logical argumentation.

In the end, one might argue — does it matter?  For, both still constitute an OPM Disability Retirement denial.  The answer: Yes.

Not every FERS Disability Retirement application prepared by a lawyer will pass through at the First Stage with an approval.  However, most should at least come close to satisfying the threshold, and those which do not, can always be supplemented at the Reconsideration Level, or with an appeal to the MSPB.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and make sure that your legal presentation to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is given the best shot possible.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Winning Argument

Most arguments are not won by sheer force of logical persuasion; for, that would require the assumption that not only does everyone think “logically”, but that everyone also has been versed in the technicalities of propositional and syllogistic logic, has studied them and accepted them as overriding and dominant methodologies of discourse.

We like to harken back to the classical period of civilization’s cradle and cloak our biases with Aristotle’s dictum that we are all “rational animals” — implying thereby that our thought processes are powered by a predetermined set of algorithms characterized by the model of a supercomputer.  Yet, we — as fallible human beings ourselves — instinctively know better.  People do not think, leaving aside argue, by mere logical rules and discourses of such modalities; there are almost always other factors involved, whether of emotional ties, internal egoistical motivations or just the pure and unadulterated need to win at every engagement.

Aside from such human factors, however, is there an “objective” standard that characterizes a “winning argument”?

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 essential to put together a FERS Disability Retirement application with this in mind: How to effectively put forth your case with “the winning argument”.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is never there to “rubber stamp” a Federal Disability Retirement application.  They are there to parse, tear apart and potentially undermine, and it is important to recognize the pitfalls and shortcomings of your particular case before putting together arguments that will ultimately win your case.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law today so that you can begin to formulate “the winning argument” that will obtain an approval of your Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: “Doing the best we can”

Sometimes, it may be a true statement; at others, it may merely turn out to be a throwaway line that is cast about to deceive a decoy into the mix.  What is the objective criteria in determining the truth of the statement?

If a young lad is failing in school and the parents contemplate some form of incentivized punishment, does the mother who relents and says, “But he is doing the best he can” have any credibility?  Or, does the filial affection shown and the inability to disbelieve the large and pitiful eyes looking back with tears rolling down his cheeks, pleading and saying, “But mommy, I’m doing the best I can!” — does it make it true?

How does one determine and separate out the complex structures of truth, objectivity, human emotions and the arena of subjective elements all contained within the bastion of a single declarative sentence?

Or of another hypothetical:  Of a man or woman who is disabled and clearly struggling, but doing everything he or she can do to extend one’s career — overcompensating by working twice as hard, twice the time expended, and three times the effort normally required; does the declarative sentence, “He/she is doing the best he/she can!” mean anything?

There are, of course, differing perspectives — to whom the declarative sentence is being addressed and the one who issues the statement, and the chasm between the two often indicates the loyalties ensconced, the self-interest concealed or otherwise left unstated, and the group-think attachments that cannot be disregarded.  That is the problem of the futile treadmill — no matter how much more effort you expend, it gets you nowhere.

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 his or her Postal or Federal job, “doing the best we can” may actually mean something — but likely only to you, and not to the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service.

The plain fact is that the “rate of return” on the expenditures invested will never maintain any semblance of comity or balance.  For, the very extraordinary efforts being expended are more indicators to the Federal Gov. Agency and the U.S. Postal Service that you are no longer “normal”, and people tend to have that herd instinct and group-think affinity where anything out of the preconceived norm cannot be accepted.

“Doing the best we can” — is it enough?  Likely, not.

Filing a FERS Medical Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will not betray the thought behind the declaration; for, in the end, who are you trying to please?  If it is the Federal Agency or the Postal Service, you are doing a disservice not only to your own health, but to the truth of the declarative sentence itself.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Postal & Federal Employee Disability Attorney

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Government Employees: The shelf

The various components of our lives reveal the type of species we are, and the reflected anthropomorphism that parallels cannot be avoided.  Is the clutter in our life an expression of functionality or of an ostentatious display to stand out and apart?

The car we choose to drive; the clothes we wear; the expressions we adopt, undertake and use with aplomb like so many water balloons thrown from around the corner in anonymous chuckles once the projected implements explode upon the shameless lives of unexpected strangers.

What do we place upon the shelves that line the walls of our own personalities?  The shelf is a strange contraption of human invention; what other animal or species of alien origins has invented such a thing?

It serves a purpose both of functionality, practicality in storing effects, and at the same time, satisfying a human need to display and present to any who visit and succumb to the curiosity of watchful eyes. Or, is it to store and forget?  Where the shelf is placed is telling; is it in the basement where relics are stored, or out in the living room against the wall, or the foyer, the recreational room?

What do we place on the shelf — photographs, and if the photograph lies face down, does it mean that those who posed for it are now in disfavor and no longer merit the studious appreciation of all who visit?

Is the shelf lined with books, and are they in alphabetical order, or in some semblance of genre-driven or other means of clean and logical categorization?  Are they first editions, signed, hardback or paperback, or just a bunch of books bought at a used book store to impress any who might peruse the shelves of you?

And what of our “mental shelves” — what do we line upon them, what storehouses and warehouse are collected in dusty bins and small knickknacks that clutter the inner thoughts of our lives?  Have we placed certain memories upon “the shelf” and forgotten about them?  Or do we reach for them when we are lonely, abandoned and left to our own devices?  Have we come to a point where we consider our own lives to be “shelved”?  Or, do we submit quietly as others have determined to “shelve” our own careers as we sit quietly upon the shelf of living and wait for the dust to collect?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition where one’s career has been placed on a metaphorical shelf — one where you are now relegated as a nonentity and barely recognized, much less acknowledged to even exist — it may be time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Agencies and the Postal Service tend to do that to their fellow human beings — of treating them as mere displays upon the shelf otherwise placed in a corner or down within the basement, and often, it is the medical condition and the loss of productivity or efficiency that determines the order of where you are placed on the shelf.

Preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application can take your off of that shelved status, and return you back to the world of the living, where dust and detritus may not be the order for the day; at least, not yet.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal & Federal Medical Retirement: Imperfect lives

Is it a characteristic trait that must even be pointed out?  How, to begin with, did we even come to possess the antonym of that concept?  Of course, that is partly the residual argument made by medieval theologians as to further evidence of the existence of God – that in order to have come to possess the concept of “perfection”, there must by logical necessity exist a being of the sort such that we can even comprehend such an idea.

Thus may the converse of that argument be made:  that in recognizing our own imperfect lives, we must have recognized perfection as a contrast to our own state of existence; ergo, a perfect Being must exist.

Of course, there are fallacies to be pointed out in such argumentation (to which the ancients would immediately posit that there are perfect logical explanations, otherwise we would be unable to recognize the imperfect fallacies contained therein – and ad infinitum, ad nauseum), but in the end, what comes out is that there is no questioning a basic fact:  We all live imperfect lives.  That, in and of itself, is not the interesting part of the equation, however.

What is astounding is that, despite the recognition that we all live imperfect lives, extrapolated from the realization that it is impossible to live a perfect life, we nevertheless attempt to portray to others, and the world over, that it is simply not the case that we live an imperfect life, but that we come as close to perfection as possible, and it is only every other schmuck that lives an imperfect life, even though we all know that the other schmuck knows that we, too, live imperfect lives.

What evidence is there of that assertion?  Look at how people act on Facebook, Instagram, any and all magazines that contained the air-brushed images of pictorial perfection – we all fear to reveal the ugly underbelly of reality, and attempt instead to show how near-to-perfection we live.  Or, the secondary argument goes, if we don’t live perfect lives, we come as close to humanly possible.

And if that one doesn’t quite convince, then the use of a rhetorical device:  Well, what choice do we have, in the end?  That’s the point; in the end, the living of an imperfect life is greater evidence that such a characteristic is not necessarily any fault attributable; it is just the natural state of a decomposing body, a deteriorating mind, of organic matter that is exposed to the influences of the world around.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who realize that a medical condition is preventing the Federal employee or Postal worker from performing all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the recognition that we all live imperfect lives is an important one.  For, what often prevents the Federal or Postal employee from initiating the necessary steps to secure a Federal Disability Retirement benefit is the fear that others may “think” that to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, first through your own Human Resource Department, then on to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, may reveal the underlying imperfection of your life.

Don’t worry about it; if you haven’t figured it out, the “others” who may think that you are imperfect for doing what needs to be done, are imperfect as well.  Really?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Benefits: The legacy

It is something that we leave behind.  Yet, unlike a wallet, a watch, a piece of jewelry or a troublesome child better left forgotten, we don’t have an opportunity to go back and get it.  We say of that laundry list, “Oh, I need to go back and get it” (except maybe of the last in the list, whom we hope will be adopted into a kindly family and simultaneously also leave the parents behind); but not of the legacy.

No one ever says of that, “Oh, I left my legacy behind, and I need to go back and get it.”  Instead, it is intimately bound up with mortality, our sense of the future minus our own presence, and a dominant desire and urge to “leave a legacy” behind, as if to do otherwise will diminish the memory of one who has now departed, will soon be forgotten and will populate the mass of unknown graves without tombstones littering the earth beneath ivy and weeds that overwhelm.

It is often money itself, which is soon spent and forgotten; or a special “something” that one remembers another by, which is placed in a drawer and also quickly, easily and without conscience soon forgotten; or, perhaps a more lasting imprint of some residual effect – a poem, an antique car (otherwise referred to as a “junk heap”), or the family farm.

Whatever the legacy left leaving lasting latitudes of lost loneliness lacking love’s longing for lengthy locutions (sorry for the alliteration, but it cannot be helped), it is something that is left behind, cannot ever be retrieved, and may or may not have a lasting impact upon the person or groups of people for whom it is intended.

Then, one can stretch the meaning to include a more modern interpretation of the concept of a legacy – of one’s own.  That is a paradigm of a “legacy” in the more common usage – of a memory of one’s life, of what kind of a legacy will one leave that will be remembers by others – that you worked yourself to death and didn’t spend the time with your kids (refer to the above, first sentence herein, where that may be a blessing), your wife or friends?  What is the point of an empty legacy of that sort?

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who begins to think of one’s life, health, future and legacy, especially because a medical condition has begun to impact one’s ability and capacity to continue in the Federal or Postal career of one’s choice, the consideration of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is often and intimately tied and bound to the fragile nature of a medical condition and its impact upon one’s life.

Struggling daily with a medical condition while trying to contend with a contentious Federal Agency or Postal Facility is not only “not fun” – it is, moreover, a futile exercise that diminishes the legacy of one’s life as a greater whole.

The “legacy” one leaves behind, indeed, is not like a wallet, a watch, or a piece of jewelry; but it is like a child left behind, where regrets for the future may yet be corrected, and for the Federal or Postal employee who needs to focus upon one’s health and future orientation that can no longer include the current job one occupies, preparation of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to OPM, may be the next best thing to a legacy yet to be considered.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Representation: The defeating question

It is the question itself which is often “telling”; it informs us of where the line of answering and posited queries is likely to take us.  It is like the map that guides in a certain direction, the compass that informs one of the vantage point of one’s existence or the gravitational pull which pulls in order to remain cohesive with other heavenly bodies; the question itself may not even need an answer.

The latter, of course, is referred to as a “rhetorical” one – that which needs no answer, is asked without necessarily seeking a response, and the one that, standing alone in the silence of an unsolicited reflection, cuts deep into the queried subject in order to provoke a contemplative reaction.  But of the “defeating” question – is it ever asked or, if it is, what is its purposive intent and deliberative content?

It is the one that is avoided, and left unasked because the facts, circumstances and surrounding context will almost always already be known to the inquiring mind.  What is the purpose for which it is asked?

No, not to defeat, but rather, to admit to the already-obvious answer that is readily known, by virtue suspected and thus absented and avoided.  Plagues reported, germs suspected and sneezing people avoided, the defeating question is the one that you already know the answer to, but by the mere fact of not vocally articulating it, is intended to remain unspoken and thus carefully avoided.

It is like the neighborhood bully that requires running after school at full speed over fences and back alleys; and like the dog barking in the early morning requiring one or of the other of the spouses to get up and let out, each hoping that the other will think kindly of the fake snoring and each avoiding the direct obligation and love for the animal itself; the defeating question, once asked, is in danger of being answered and therefore brought “out in the open” for no one to ignore, anymore.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition may require the Federal or Postal employee to prepare, formulate and file 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 question unasked and avoided, and the one feared as the “defeating question” is quite simply: Do I need to file for OPM Disability Retirement benefits?

Already answered.  The only difference is, what is meant by “defeating”, is often within the purview of the inquiring mind.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The Adaptable Criterion

If a criterion is advanced at the outset, one expects that the details of its applicability will result in a fair outcome so long as the requisite subsets are adhered to.  The problem is one of generalizations, however, and the linguistic malleability of hermeneutic interpretation, and in the end, the honesty of the individual.

There may have been a time when the sin nature of man was contained, and Pandora’s box was sealed, or at least somewhat secured; but once relativism creeped into the general populace, the game of restraint was lost forever.  Once, when man was left to individualistic devices, and information concerning the world was considered esoteric and reserved for the ivory towers of science and theological hoods of mystery shorn by Jesuit Orders of secrecy and cavernous enclaves of furtive whispers echoing down dark chambers in secluded corners, the application and usage of criteria demanded knowledge beyond the commonplace. Now, with Google and other search engines, everyone knows everything, or nothing at all.

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, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the “trick” is to review the legal criteria, amass the information in a manner which fits the applicability for eligibility, then to “make the case” for an approval.

Is it a science?  Or, more precisely, are the regulatory subsets “open to interpretation”?  And more to the point:  Do the Administrative Specialists at OPM adhere to the “letter of the law”, or is hermeneutics less than an honest methodology these days?  Where human nature is concerned, one need not stray too far from the general knowledge of the masses.

If one has lived long enough, you know that you should always walk through the busy streets of a city with one hand on your back pocket, protecting your wallet.  Pickpockets are everywhere, and in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, the Federal and Postal worker should always be cognizant of the fact that the adaptable criterion is not the fault of the agency or the promulgators of legal standards, but merely reflects the fact that Pandora’s box was left open long ago, and the serpents of horror and dishonesty were left to roam the earth like never before.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire