Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Substantive Interlude

An interlude is meant to provide an intervening period of change in order for the transition from one part of an event (e.g., a play or a musical piece, etc.) to another will occur without confusion.  It is likened to a grammatical comma or a semicolon.  But if the interlude itself cannot be distinguishable from the events from which, and to which, the transition occurs, then such an interlude has failed to accomplish the intended purpose for its very own existence.

In short, the minor event should never overshadow the primary themes of a presentation, but merely allow for a respite and period of transitional reflection.

In writing, while the technical methodology of “stream of consciousness”, recognized in writings by such notable figures as Faulkner and Joyce, one often gets the sense that such writers never experienced the need for an interlude, but always forged ahead with a never-ending focus of exploding words and conceptual intersections of thoughts and phrases.

This may well work in fiction; in technical legal writing, however, such an approach only confuses and confounds.

For those attempting to prepare, formulate or file a Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to understand the concept of an interlude, and to make it meaningful, in order to ensure that the core concepts which one is attempting to convey will have its intended impact.

Linguistic interludes are meant to allow for the reader to have a pause, a breath of reflection; streams of consciousness of jumping from one issue to the next, often referred to as the “shotgun approach”, is rarely an effective form of writing.  And, in the end, we want the recipient of the Federal Disability Retirement application to review and understand; to comprehend and appreciate; and ultimately to agree.

In order to do that, the Federal Disability Retirement applicant must be able to distinguish the world of ideas, from the greater universe of confused thoughtlessness, and that is where the substantive interlude comes into play.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Gov. and USPS Disability Retirement: The Pragmatic Steps

The practical aspects of every process must never be overlooked.  When an issue or procedural process appears complicated, what often happens is that people get entangled in the details of such complexity and overlook the fundamentals which support the composite of such perplexing complications.

This principle of never forgetting to take care of the essentials, is no less true in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS.

One can, for example, get entangled in the details of the legal interpretation of what constitutes a viable accommodation under the law, and whether or not the agency is able to offer such a proposal of accommodation.  And, indeed, agencies will often misinterpret and attempt to characterize actions on their part as constituting an accommodation (i.e., that they “allowed” the Federal or Postal employee to take sick leave, annual leave or LWOP to attend to his or her medical appointments — hardly a legally viable accommodation under the law, when all that was initiated was to allow the Federal or Postal employee to do that which he or she already had a legal right to do), and when that happens, it is up to the applicant and his/her Federal Disability Retirement attorney to point such mis-statements out to OPM.

The web of complications in the process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits can be wide and perplexing; but just as a spider must prepare the threads which connect into an intricate criss-crossing of singular threads into a composite of such threads in order to effectively catch its prey, so the Federal or Postal worker wwho contemplates filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits must carefully build his or her case beginning with the first, fundamental steps on the road to a solid foundation

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: Avoidance of the Close Encounter

Ultimately, preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS from the Office of Personnel Management requires a “setting aside” of a direct encounter with one’s acknowledgment and concession that one has an intractable medical condition which is directly impacting one’s ability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.  It is to come face to face with the realization that the hard-fought career goals, the years of schooling and education; the overcoming of the inevitable learning curve during one’s youth and inception of a career — are ending not as a result of actualizing one’s dreams and goals, but because of an intermediate cause:  a medical condition.  

The struggle to continue working despite the chronic pain or deteriorating cognitive capabilities is the natural attempt to prolong that which one worked so diligently to strive towards; but at a certain point, such a struggle to continue working despite the increasing manifestation of the medical symptomatologies becomes an “avoidance” issue — of avoiding having to face the inevitable decision-making process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.

At some point, however, prolonging the avoidance issue for too long leads to the inevitability of a flashpoint — of an emergency resulting from a crisis, where the Agency itself will propose an adverse action, or the medical condition itself will dictate the terms and conditions which necessitate filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.  Avoidance will force the close encounter; too long of an avoidance will make the encounter not just close, but a direct impact requiring emergency actions.  

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Workplace Issues

The reason why workplace issues, whether having any relevance in a Federal Disability Retirement application or not, continue to be insidious in their persistent appearance and stubborn insistence upon dominating an Applicant’s Statement of Disability, is because they are often perceived to be the originating cause (or so it is often thought to be by the Applicant who is preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS) of a medical condition.

Whether the age-old question of the “egg before the chicken or the chicken before the egg” is answered, and in what way, is often the wrong approach to take.  More often than not, when a medical condition begins to progressively deteriorate a Federal or Postal employee’s health, and the impact upon one’s ability/inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job begins to manifest itself to supervisors, coworkers, managers, etc.; at about the same critical juncture, harassment — or the perception of harassment — begins to occur. Such workplace issues then begin to exponentially quantify and exacerbate, feeding onto each other:  the workplace issues begin to exacerbate the medical condition; the stress-levels rise; soon thereafter, agency efforts to protect itself begin to get triggered — counseling letters on leave usage, sick-leave restriction, placement of a Federal or Postal employee on AWOL, 14-day suspensions, placement on a PIP, all begin to erupt.

The key in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, however, is to have the self-discipline to identify which workplace issues are relevant to bring into the arena of an OPM disability retirement application. Discipline in such matters is a difficult measure to undertake; however, it is a critical step to recognize and initiate, bifurcate and separate, and where irrelevant, to excise and discard, when preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: The Value of Preemption

“What if” questions are rarely useful in applying the law, except in a preparatory manner for cross-examination purposes.  No one likes surprises, and to prepare for every potentiality, eventuality, and “what if” scenario is a good idea — but only in a theoretical sense.  

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, the “what if” questions will inevitably arise — What if my Supervisor writes X?  What if OPM asks Y?  What if… ?  The problem with “what if” questions is not in the asking of such questions (for asking them requires contemplation of a potential problem, which may propel preparation to an eventuality); rather, the problem occurs if one attempts to preempt a problem which may potentially exits but never realize its actuality.  

If one preempts a non-occurrence, then what one has done is to wave a red flag and notify the Office of Personnel Management of the problem by bringing up the problem in the first place.  That is often the very essence of the difficulties one finds in the preparation of the Applicant’s Statement of Disability, where the applicant fills out the SF 3112A as if it is a stream of consciousness opportunity to present to the Office of Personnel Management every problem known to man.

Preemption is fine for preparation; it needs to be answered and applied with great discretion.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire