Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Cartesian Bifurcation

Modern philosophy is often considered to have begun with the French philosopher, Descartes; this is perhaps unfortunate, for the resulting inward navel gazing which was precipitated and the subsequent conceptual bifurcation between mind and body, for which we must contend with and pay the price, to this day.

For the longest time, of course, there was a suspicion that psychiatric conditions were somehow less viable and more difficult to prove; this is perhaps as a result of a misconception and misunderstanding of that proof which constitutes “objective” data as opposed to “subjective” interpretations of any factual analysis.

In Federal Disability Retirement cases, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board has steadfastly rejected any notions of subjective/objective differentiation, especially when it comes to psychiatric medical conditions.  Fortunately for the Federal and Postal Worker who suffers from medical conditions such that the medical disability prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, the MSPB has repeatedly rejected OPM’s claim that certain medical evidence (clinical examinations and encounters with a psychiatrist, for instance) is merely “subjective”, as opposed to what they deem to be considered “objective” medical evidence.

Whether anyone at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is aware of Descartes and the French philosopher’s profound influence upon the mind/body bifurcation is a matter of factual irrelevance; the important historical point to be recognized is the trickling down impact from theoretical discourses in academia, to the pragmatic application of concepts in bureaucratic administrative functions.

Descartes lives, and the echoes of his philosophical influence resounds and reverberates down into the hallways of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in the daily reviews of Federal Disability Retirement applications.

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

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Ockham’s Razor

Ockham’s Razor is a principle of economy; in its various forms and historically evolved attributes, the formulation of lex parsimoniae involves the idea that, where there are multiple competing theories and paradigms in explaining a phenomena, issue, or working hypothesis, one should always choose the least complex delineation — the reason being, superfluous and extraneous material generally lead to complications which rarely add to the foundational essence of the paradigm.  To put it in an alternate form:  Keep it simple.

Thus, in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is always important to follow the principle underlying Ockham’s Razor:  Keep to the core and essence of the case; focus upon the nexus between one’s positional duties and the medical condition which one suffers from; weave a consistent theme; check for inconsistencies; and always maintain the simplicity of the case, while avoiding and disregarding extraneous factual issues which, while they may be personally of importance or of special aggravation, should be left out because they unnecessarily complicate matters.

FERS & CSRS Disability retirement and the obtaining of an approval is the goal to focus upon; all else should fall by the wayside, cut loose by the sharp blade of Ockham’s razor.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Technical Application of Terms

Wittgenstein’s contribution to Western Philosophy was twofold:  On the one hand, his insight into the role of language and how much (if not all, according to him) of philosophy’s substantive problems and complexities could be unraveled through the analytical dismantling of linguistic confusions, and secondly, the idea that philosophy as an academic discipline should not be given greater stature than any other — in other words, he believed that philosophy was a waning and anachronistic field which would eventually wither on the vines of history, and properly so.

While the undersigned disagrees with the latter assessment, it is the former contribution concerning “language games” and their import to society, daily living, and even to the technical world of legal jargon, which is of interest and relevance.  Lawyers necessarily have a “language game” of their own.  Within the peculiar universe of legal terms, the technical application of such “legalese” has direct and dire consequences if not understood properly and applied narrowly.

In the world of Federal Disability Retirement law, the term “accommodations” is often and profusely applied by agencies and Human Resources Personnel, but more often than not, in a loose and inappropriate manner.  Agencies bandy about the term, to wit:  “Mr. X. was accommodated by allowing for temporary light duty“; “We provided him with an accommodation by letting him take liberal sick leave and LWOP”; “Ms. Y was accommodated with instructions not to lift over her medical restrictions”; and other such implied applications of the term.

Which of the previously-cited statements constitute a technically correct use of the term “accommodation” within the context of Federal Disability Retirement?

Answer:  None of them.

Language games have inherently peculiar traits and rules of application; within the parameters of Federal Disability Retirement, too often the rules of usage are not complied with.  The consequences of non-compliance, unfortunately, is that Federal and Postal employees actually believe that they are being “accommodated”, when in fact they are not.

Further, believing that one is being accommodated by an agency may lead to the mistaken belief that one is ineligible for Federal Disability Retirement, when in fact one has always been eligible precisely because the agency cannot or has failed to provide a legally viable accommodation.  Look into the proper use of terms, and the technically correct application of terms.

In the end, Wittgenstein was right:  Language games reveal more about the competence of those who play them, than about the lack of precision exhibited by human behavior.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: An Aristotelian Approach

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics has been the primary foundation for the Western paradigm of proper behavior in philosophy.  Quite distinct from his obtuse Metaphysics, the ethical framework of Aristotle takes a pragmatic, almost Confucian approach to correct behavior — balancing context, temperament, timing and correct behavior in formulating a modulated encompassment of how one should act.

As with all things in life, there must be a “balance” — and a recognition that time and relative context of affairs must be taken into consideration before one should act.  In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, one must similarly recognize that there is an insight into the balance of life before one can proceed with any action, whether it is an administrative action before the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, or before one’s own agency.

A Federal Disability Retirement application must be “proven”; as such, there is a distinction to be made between that which one “experiences”, and that which one can “prove”.

In such a context, sometimes a medical retirement packet may take some time in order to fully develop and evolve.  Doctors may not be able to be approached immediately; instead, at the right time, and in the right manner, they may be willing to provide the necessary medical and professional support in order to make one’s Federal Disability Retirement case successful and productive.

The pragmatic approach which Aristotle used in his ethics is still relevant today:  at the right time, in the proper context, and taking into consideration the temperament of others.  In this way, success can be attained by possessing an insight and wisdom into the world of human affairs.  This was the approach of Aristotle; and so it was with Confucius.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire