FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Consciousness and the Linguistic Divide

Throughout the wide expanse of Western Philosophical debates, the tension of truth has always been the subtle, often unspoken, surreptitious thread underlying the waging war of words.  As the writing of history is left to the victors, so the linguistic divide between truth and falsity belongs to the mastery of words. The modern subtext to the greater debate encapsulates consciousness and whether the wholeness of one’s being can be adequately described in scientific terms comprised of physically-oriented language — i.e., synapses, cells and serotonin levels.

Can one adequately capture the wholeness of a person, and the uniqueness of the individual, by the expungement of non-objective language and transference and translation of reductionism to physically-oriented descriptions?  And what of Ryle’s perennial problem of that “ghost in the machine“?  Of course, Dennett would explain away the issue of consciousness by a series of component divides — of sectional surgeries which, in their individual pieces, would reveal the lack of the greater elements beyond the individual parts.  But in the end, does the adoption of such science-based language adequately present a true picture of man?

On a human level, in every society, the problem is seen in how agencies and organizations view and treat individuals with medical problems.  For Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job, the issue of being “lesser” than coworkers becomes a problem of actions, how we view our fellow man, and the greater linguistic divide which impacts treatment of individuals.  Language is important in capturing the fantasy of fulfillment.  It is the seed of creativity.  Reduction of language and expungement into mere metabolic processes will ultimately dehumanize society, and equate maltreatment with mere surgical precision.

Federal and Postal Workers who confront the issue of daily abuse in the workplace because of a medical condition suffered, recognize how insensitive conglomerates can be.  For the Federal and Postal Worker who has come to a point where one’s agency no longer views him or her in the wholeness of one’s being and the worth of being a productive individual, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, is an option to consider, and to take one’s abilities and capabilities elsewhere to another vocation.

History is replete with man’s capacity to dehumanize; language is the key to expunging the very humanity which society possesses in the treatment of individuals; and in the end, consciousness is the last bastion of unexplained beauty in the greater linguistic divide of social conscience.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Doctors and the Peculiarities of Treatment

Efficacy of treatment is the goal for a doctor; and upon information that such efficacy has failed to render improvement or incremental signs of progress, many doctors lose interest, or become suspicious.

Social Security Disability, of course, requires a higher standard of proof — one of essentially “total disability”, where one is no longer able to engage in “substantially gainful activity” — and, as such, is an implicit admission of medical failure.

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement, however, is merely an acknowledgement that there are certain medical conditions which, limited in their scope and impact, prevent a person from performing one or more of the essential elements of a particular kind of job.  Such a person who goes out on Federal Disability Retirement benefits can still remain productive in the work-world, by pursuing another, different kind of vocation.

As such, from a medical point of view, conveying the distinction between the two is like the difference between identifying a hill as opposed to a mountain:  both may have some elevation, but the extent and scope between the two goes well beyond a linguistic peculiarity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Those Workplace Issues

In preparing a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, there are often multiple collateral issues which arise:  Harassment issues; Unequal Treatment; EEOC issues; Hostile Workplace issues; Discrimination issues; and multiple other issues which may or may not be viable complaints.  Such complaints have their proper place, in the proper forum, within the proper context.  As I have written multiple times previously on this issue — these employment issues should be avoided in the context of preparing for and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application.  

Many of these employment complaints may be viable ones to pursue; some may be pursued concurrently while seeking Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, and will not ultimately defeat or impact such an application (remember that in law, not only can an attorney speak out of three or four sides of his mouth; one is also allowed to make contradictory legal arguments at the same time).  

The point is that such collateral arguments and issues should not be a part of the application itself.  It may be fine to pursue such workplace issues in a separate and different forum — just not in the process of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  If the issue is brought up, the Office of Personnel Management may well use it against you, stating, “Your medical conditions seem to occur as a result of your allegation of the actions of your Supervisor. As such, you suffer merely from situational disability.”  Case denied.  

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire