Federal Disability Retirement Lawyers: Guarantees

It turns out that — in this time of modernity where language can persuade anything and anyone on everything everywhere — that a guarantee is not quite what it proposes.

Is a “money-back guarantee” a guarantee at all?  To say to X, “I guarantee you an outcome-O; but if it doesn’t turn out that way, then I will give you your money back.”  Huh?  How is that different from no guarantee at all?

Okay, so maybe you receive a refund — but you are in no better position than if no guarantee was made to you to begin with; it’s only that you received a refund of your own money with nothing else to show for it.

Disjunctives essentially nullify the affirmative assertion of a statement.  Thus, to say that, Well, I guarantee you X or (beware of that disjunctive) if X doesn’t occur, then Y — is to merely give with one hand and take it back with the other.

Life in general, as we all know, rarely has any guarantees at all.

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, the process of filing for FERS Disability Retirement benefits is complex enough without being mislead into thinking that entitlement is a guarantee.

It is a benefit that must be fought for, and as all fights worthwhile have a cost to be paid, it is well to consider that an attorney who “guarantees” an outcome should be approached with caution.  Seek the advice of counsel who provides worthy guidance — not one who “guarantees” something that cannot be guaranteed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Future Robbing Present

How much time do we spend worrying about the future?

In this concerning age, where debts keep rising, expenses keep increasing, wages remain stagnant and instability around the world continues as a reality we are all faced with — the amount of time spent in anxious anticipation of a future not yet established is a reality which we all must constrain.

Planning for the future is a necessity; articulating plans and loosely following them, a nuisance; but what of worrying about a projected experience not yet upon us — is it a mere waste of time?

The future robs the present by keeping our focus outside of the experiences of the present; whether by brooding about it, being lost in thought for it or merely fidgeting with anxiousness towards it; it all amounts to the same:  The joy of a present experience is lost because of the worry which overwhelms us.

Of the past — we tend to relish or regret it; but inasmuch as it is something that has already occurred, we do not obsessively remain in that time slot; unless, of course, we fear the consequences of past actions upon future events.  But it is for present circumstances that may trigger future worries — as in a medical condition currently experienced that we project into the future as to the medical condition’s capacity to impact our anticipated lives.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition will likely prevent the Federal or Postal worker — in the future of, say, 6 months hence, 12 months beyond, 3-5 years of becoming — from performing one or more of the essential elements of his or her Federal or Postal job, it is always a good idea to consider early in filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.

If worry for the future is robbing the present, then it is time to consult with an Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.  Worrying about the future will not change or alter the course of events yet to come; to prepare for a pathway towards such change for the future, it is wise to first consult with an experienced Federal Disability Retirement Attorney, lest the future come upon you unprepared and like a thief in the night robbing you of your present.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Benefits: The Bridge to Nowhere

It is a metaphor which evokes images of hopelessness and futility, if such images can indeed be captured at all.  Whether of an attitude, a perspective or the existential reality of one’s personal circumstances, the question is, Why was the bridge to nowhere built to begin with?  There it stands, in mid-construction, suspended but unfinished, not leading to anywhere, not going in any particular direction, not coming from any place known.

It is often how we feel in the middle of our lives.  One has only to sit in a cafe, by a window, and watch the midday rush of people coming and going, seemingly with purpose, appearing with decisiveness, until you catch the gaze of someone passing — a knowing look, a pause, a hesitation; and at that moment of illumination, the stranger and you both know that the constant, ant-like activity is merely a whirl of coming and going upon a bridge to nowhere.

The furious pace of life; of rushing to get to work, working, then rushing to get home within a factory of people uncaring and unaware.  Then, when calamity hits — a medical condition that interrupts, intercedes and imposes its existence upon you — suddenly the routine of ferocious activity finds meaning in the very meaninglessness felt the moment before.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal job because of a medical condition, the sense that one is driving upon a bridge to nowhere is common and troubling.  Of course one’s health should be a priority; and of course work, the “mission” of the Federal agency and the harassment that is initiated without empathy or understanding — all of that stuff should be secondary and subordinated to taking care of one’s health.

Filing for FERS Disability Retirement benefits is the recognition that the bridge to nowhere will not take you anywhere, and it is in order to regain that insight of meaningfulness that it is important to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application in order to focus upon the importance of priorities shoved aside — like one’s health.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement from the OPM: Formulating the argument

How does one formulate “the argument”?  Is it merely a reaction that comes naturally, like the person who has been tagged as one who is “constantly argumentative”?  Do all arguments need to provide a foundation of rational discourse — of coherence within an invective of counter-statements, and structure countermanding a deterioration of civility?

For example, when a person begins to answer the questions posed on SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS — does one pause, consider the various answers that may be provided, and establish a methodology in proceeding to satisfy the question? Does the Federal or Postal employee contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits consider first the consequences of one’s answers, and do you weave throughout a thoughtful argument for an approval?  Or, should the “argument” be filed via a separate Legal Memorandum, pointing out the relevant laws, citing the statues and quoting from various cases that have previously addressed the issues posed?

Most people who file for FERS Medical Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management fail to consider the preemptive arguments that should be made within the answers to questions posed on SF 3112A, and thus are denied at the First Stage of the process because the applicant thought that a simple question asked required a similarly-simple answer as requested.

Then, of course, when the Initial Denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application is received through the mail, the Second Stage of the process — the “Reconsideration Stage” — merits further formulation of legal arguments.  At whatever “stage” you are at — whether at the First and Initial Stage; the second, “Reconsideration” Stage; or even at the Third Stage, an Appeal with the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board — formulating a coherent, cogent and rational argument that persuades OPM to approve the Federal Disability Retirement application is an important component in a winning FERS Medical Retirement application.

Remember — to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is not like having an argument with a friend or spouse; it is an argument which must be based upon facts, evidence, and legal precedents, and to have the best “shot” at it requires the hand of an Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

 

Legal Representation on Federal Disability Retirement Claims: “As if”

Why are OPM’s denials of a Federal Disability Retirement application written “as if” it is an “all of nothing” proposition?  Conversely, why does an approval of a Federal Disability Retirement application (with the exception of the single sentence which identifies the medical conditions upon which the approval is based) reflect a regurgitation of a template used on countless occasions dating back decades?

Wouldn’t a more “honest” approach be for both the denial and an approval to have a touch of: “Well, okay, evidence X does clearly show that you likely couldn’t do essential element Y” and “Yes, all and all, despite having a good performance review in the past year, your absences aggregated to establish evidence that you weren’t able to maintain a satisfactory attendance, and therefore, even if it is a ‘close call’, we have decided that you have met the preponderance of the evidence criteria and grant you your disability retirement request” — or, “Therefore, even though it was a close call, we believe you have NOT met the preponderance of the evidence standard, and therefore deny your application for Federal Disability Retirement.”

In other words, why is the “as if” standard applied as a one-way street, where every Denial invokes a disparaging and often scoffing-tone as to every bit of evidence presented, and seems to selectively diminish even the most compelling of evidence submitted?  Is it because of the very human need for self-justification, or are there other, more nefarious reasons girding the foundation of every denial?

Certainly, when a “no” is presented, one is taught to make it worse than it actually is in order to justify the negation; sort of like when you really do feel deathly ill, but by all appearances, you don’t sound it, and may not even look it, so when you call in sick or you tell your mom you can’t make it to school, you put it on “as if” you are on the verge of mortality’s early calling.

But don’t be fooled.  OPM’s denials are presented “as if” you never stood a chance; “as if” there was never any basis for even making an effort to file; and “as if” you have wasted your time even bothering to file — is meant to discourage, if not dissuade, any further effort of fighting onward.  But that is not the reality of a Federal Disability Retirement case, whether you are under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset — for, the reason why you have multiple stages in which to fight on is precisely the reason why you must: “As if” you have a chance, and not “as if” you never did.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Attorney for Federal Disability Retirement Claims: Next Steps

It is the previous step that determines the following one, and the one before that which closes the alternatives for multiple other pathways; in the end, sequence matters, protocol can make a difference, and how one takes the steps, in what direction, by what methodology — these are all important considerations to contemplate.  What the endeavor is; by what means one is attempting to achieve the end-result; and the manner in which the goal is reached; the attempt the take a short-cut will often result in only a short-lived gain, but often with long-term consequences that, upon reflection, made the short-cut pay a price greater than the worth of the gain.

Next steps are important; each step, whether previously taken or subsequently considered, are also obviously of significance, but one could argue that those already taken cannot be reversed or, if reversed or retraced, may complicate matters more, whereas the “next step” yet to be taken may impact all previous ones already established and thus must be considered in light of the consequences likely to ensue.

Whatever has already occurred in the past cannot be undone or, if it can, must be retracted with care such that any retrospective refashioning of previous actions taken will do no greater harm than that which has already been consummated.  It is always the “next steps” that are the crucial ones, for they will determine not only the efficacy of all previous ones, but further, will either validate or undermine all previous ones heretofore taken.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering 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 next steps you take may be the critical ones that determine the success or failure of the entire complex, administrative and bureaucratic process you are attempting to undertake.

What statements are made as reflected on SF 3112A, the Applicant’s Statement of Disability; the sufficiency of the medical reports and records gathered, to be submitted as Attachments to your Federal Disability Retirement application; whether you answer and address the issues concerning accommodations in the workplace sufficiently or in what manner; whether you have an adequate understanding and comprehension of your rights with regard to Federal Disability Retirement Law; these and many other “next steps” may well determine the future course of actions previously taken, ignored or otherwise not initiated.

Perhaps the “next step” should be to consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable about Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest the “next step” be the one that leads to an unforeseen stumble, where that next step leads to a misstep or the following next step after that cannot occur.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Insular worries

How much time is spent on worries constantly engaged in conversations never spoken but hidden within the insular universe of the private mind?  The walking person who appears to be “carefree” with an impassive face or even a flashing grin; of that person, can one detect the trembling child within, the shuddering fears hidden and the angst-driven force behind?

So much time is often spent on battling against the monsters that loom so large within the insular world of one’s mind that productivity is diminished, creativity is dashed and the relishing of valuable moments become forever a memory that could have been, might have occurred and only fleetingly felt.

How does one counter the obsessive characteristics that most of us are beset with — of anticipating doom and disaster where none has yet occurred; of predicting that failure is just around the corner without having seen any indicators of either the bend around the next block nor the sunshine that foreshadows success; or of simply worrying because there is too much calm, or an overabundance of happiness, joy and the saltiness of success?

Is it always the “quiet one” whom we should all watch for?  Why is it that, after a tragic incident, the neighbor always points to the perpetrator of the crime and says, “He/she was such a nice, quiet person”?  Is it because the insular worries that are never spoken, but remain silent throughout, grow and fester like the mold behind the cellar door or the pus within the bubble of hidden flesh?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who walk about with a medical condition that must be “kept private” and “hidden” for fear that the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service might begin to “take actions” to restrict the use of Sick Leave, or refuse to allow for extended LWOP or, worse yet, to place one on a “Performance Improvement Plan” with the full knowledge that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job duties — preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, might be the logical next step beyond walking about with the insular worries of an anticipated future event.

Worrying is an integral and inseparable part of modernity; the world is complex, and the complexities themselves create a surreal universe of worries and anxieties; how we “deal” with them, however, is the key to successfully tackling them.  Consulting with an experienced attorney who specializes in handling Federal Disability Retirement issues will likely be the necessary first step in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, and perhaps the unburdening of those insular worries that are bundle up with questions that need some answers.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire