FERS Disability Retirement Law: The Patchwork of Life

It is an appropriate metaphor — of a hodgepodge (even the word itself reflects well the definition) — where the composition is made up of miscellaneous or incongruous parts, yet with the result possessing the potentiality of a fulfilled and even “beautiful” end-product.

The fact that it begins with incongruity and miscellany, doesn’t mean that the final and finished composition must by necessity reflect the unplanned or ill-fitting periods.  Much of life is like that — of spectrums representing imperfect and uncomfortable deluges of pegs trying to fit into round circumstances; but we have to make the best of it, and over time, the problems and frictions will ultimately resolve themselves.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows you to continue in your Federal or Postal career — perhaps this is another “patch” which must somehow fit into the long list of incongruity.  Well, so be it.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, and consider whether and how to fit the next ill-fitting piece into the whole of your life, so that when you look back, it will have been the perfect fit in a quilt of beauty.

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.

 

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Retirement: Myth of the Unbiased

The “uninterested” or “unbiased” party — does such an entity even exist?  In parochial terms, it is to say that “X has no skin in the game” — meaning thereby that an individual has no preference, no “money placed as a bet” on either team; has never expressed any weighted opinion as to one or the other — in other words, he or she is an “unbiased” participant.

But there are other factors beyond whether or not a person expresses a preference, are there not?  Of an irrational dislike of one over the other; of a self-interested desire to “win” by picking one over the other; or perhaps of simply being bored and wanting to be a contrarian by choosing one over the other.

Thus, in a Federal Disability Retirement application before a “medical specialist” at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, to identify an OPM reviewer as someone who is unbiased or uninterested, is to miss the point.  Yes, allegedly, OPM is supposed to be unbiased and uninterested, and merely apply the law and review a Federal Disability Retirement case in an objective manner.

The reality is quite different, however, because of the complexity of the human psyche involving motives, unstated intentions and deep-seated psychological needs.  What can be done about it?  Nothing, really — other than to point out the errors, the lack of logic, and apply the law — and counter any denial or preempt a denial by submitting a legal memorandum which is truly unbiased.

Contact a disability attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and maintain a semblance of objectivity in order to enhance your chances of winning your Federal Disability Retirement benefits 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.

 

Long-Term Disability Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: Carelessness

In some professions, it matters not; in others, perhaps of a de minimus impact; but to many, of a great and irreversible impact.

For an eye surgeon, the slightest tremor may mean the difference between sight and blindness, where carelessness is a measure of delicate differentiation.  For the store clerk who stocks the shelves — whether slightly crooked; not quite neatly presented; perhaps placed in the wrong aisle or section — carelessness may have some minor impact upon the profits gained, but likely not quantifiable in comparison to the dexterity needed for the eye surgeon.

Carelessness is just that — of a lack of care, a negation of competence which ultimately is traced back to the intentions of the individual.  Does the person care?  Is the worker diligent?  Does the employee have a sense of self-awareness to be able to improve?

Sometimes, “intentions” are mistaken by the results of the work itself — as in, when a medical condition is impacting one’s ability and capacity to perform at the same standard of care.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition is beginning to manifest itself through carelessness at work, contact a Federal Disability Lawyer who specializes in securing OPM Disability Retirement benefits for Federal employees, and begin the process of carefully putting together an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: Life’s Muddle

We like to think that we are competent; but much of life is a muddle, where we try and plod along acting “as if”, when the truth is that we are winging it.  For the most part, that works; and the reason why it works is because the rest of the world, as well, is simply plodding along in the same manner and fashion.  Life is a muddle, and when a significant intervening event comes into play, the muddle becomes even murkier and the division between those who are truly competent, and those who have simply been “faking it”, come to the fore and become ever more focused.

Medical conditions, likewise, tend to do that: They bring out the best of people, as well as the worst.  They sharpen the divide between people who are empathetic and those who care not a twit except for times when it might be to their advantage.  And, as Federal agencies and Postal facilities are mere microcosms of people in general, the extent of an Agency’s efforts to accommodate a Federal employee’s medical conditions reveals the underlying character of the people involved.

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 time to continue to muddle through the complex bureaucratic process of filing a Federal Disability Retirement application should be left to the “experts”.  There are times to muddle, and times not to muddle, and the latter is one of those times when filing for FERS Disability Retirement benefits with OPM.

Consult with an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and stop trying to muddle through life’s muddle.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement under FERS: Know Thyself

As to the familiar saying — of “knowing one’s self” — what can it possibly mean?  The saying, “Know thyself”, was inscribed on various temples in Ancient Egypt and was known to be one of the Delphic maxims.

Socrates, of course, taught a variation of the statement, contending that the “unexamined life is not worth living” — but the question which immediately comes to the fore is: At what point do we examine ourselves?  Is it a daily, continuous engagement?  Do we wait until we reach various stages of our lives before proposing such an examination?

For most of us, we don’t have the time or energy that Socrates had — of constantly stirring up trouble and pestering and peppering this person or that with questions that are meant to confound, confuse, irritate and provoke; and to examine one’s life is to constantly ask questions which we may know not the answers to.

Is it the questioning itself which is so important (one might posit that such an approach to life is precisely what Socrates himself believed)?  Were the questions posed by Socrates actually answerable, or were they just rhetorical flourishes meant to undermine the accepted, normative conclusions of the day?

To that extent — of questions without necessarily expecting any definitive answers — perhaps if Socrates were to appear in this age, he would be overjoyed with the way in which we live today: of therapy accepted as the modality of self-examination; of the explosion of “self-help” books and the payment-for-services of “life coaches” and “experts” on “living”.

Ultimately, “knowing thyself” is an endeavor that has no boundaries and cannot expect definitive answers, precisely because the “self” is an ever-expanding phenomena and “knowing” is never a static activity.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition is preventing the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the maxim of “Know Thyself” is an important element in making a decision concerning Federal Disability Retirement.

You must know what your job is; what your physical or mental capabilities are; and whether you can continue on in the job that you hold.  Further, it is the maxim itself which should lead you to consult with a Federal Disability Retirement Attorney, that is, a lawyer who specializes in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application; for, in the end, to know thyself is to gather knowledge from all sources in an effort to “know” and to clarify the boundaries of “thyself”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Having something to say

There are people who speak volumes in voluminous volubility, but of thinness of content and lacking of much substance.  Then, there is that quiet person in the corner, perhaps distracted by someone’s glancing comment or lost in his own thoughts who, when asked about a topic of general interest to all in a group, articulates in a single sentence what others have attempted to encapsulate in a paragraph, a page, or perhaps a Dickensian novel.

Having something to say is the linguistic equivalent of wanting to be noticed, needing to be relevant and asking to be loved.  The capitalistic rule of supply-and-demand works within other and foreign contexts, as well — that when the supply of articulation exceeds the demand sought, the diminishment of value in words is proportional to the content of relevance.

Of course, the general truism which becomes reduced to an inane thought is that we “all have something to say” — that is to say, each one of us can make a contribution to the general pool of solutions, ideas, thoughts, etc.  But if everyone can be everything to everybody, then nothing comes from nothing where something is devalued because everything is nothing — in other words, the diminishment of value because supply exceeds so much of a lesser demand.

There are times, of course, when — whether we have something to say or not — it becomes necessary to express something; to express it well; and to express it with clarity and conciseness of thought.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have come to a point where filing for Federal Disability Retirement has become a necessity, “Having something to say” becomes important because of the requirement of filing SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability as part of the FERS Disability Retirement packet.  The questions posed on SF 3112A appear simple; but do not mistake “simple” for “simplicity” — for, within the content of the simple are a jumble of complexities that are interconnected with legal precedents and court rulings.

Language is a funny animal; it requires thought beyond the pool of language one is familiar with, and it is the unfamiliar which can become the cliff over which one can fall, and to prevent the calamities which one may not be aware of, it is best to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to make sure that when you have something to say, it is posited with knowledge and legal counsel.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Thinking Straight

Why “straight” as opposed to curved or in a zig-zag manner?  Who first thought that it was preferable, desirable, and even “smarter” to “think straight” as opposed to a thought process which involves a greater complexity of circuitous routes?

Is the origin based upon a metaphor or an analogy — that, because the shortest distance from Point A to Destination B must by geometric necessity involve a straight line, and therefore one may extrapolate from such a mathematical truth that the thinking-process which yields the best results is compromised of a similar metric: Of a direct and non-convoluted form of cognitive input, without the wavering lines and complicated conundrums involved in any form other than a straight line?

Yet, the process of “thinking” itself is often one that must include reflection upon multiple and endless variables: What if this happens?  What about such-and-such circumstances?  What about conditionals and unknown factors, and how will it end up if X fails to materialize or Y begins to dominate?  What about the principle contained in Occam’s Razor?  Is that the analogy that prevails upon the concept of “thinking straight”?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the question as to whether you should consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS should, indeed, be based upon “straight thinking”, and the process of “thinking straight” should generally apply.

However, as Federal Disability Retirement Law is a complex administrative process that involves multiple facets that intersect with the Federal Agency, the Human Resource Office, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and complexities involving accommodations, potential reassignment issues, etc., the fact that a straight line may exist between the filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application and the approval or denial by OPM of that application, does not make it any simpler.

Complexity is a fact of life.  To simplify things, you should consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law in order to make sure that “straight thinking” is achieved by thinking straight, and that should come from advice and counsel which gives you the right direction on how to get from Point A to Destination B.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Information: Options

The telephone-recorded options are the most irritating of all, of course — for, if you hit the wrong one, or fail to remember the correct numeral identified after being offered an endless litany of alternatives, none of which quite fit what you are looking for, then you have to wait until a further option is offered to go back to the general directory in order to once again choose the option offered.

Have such recordings become more irritating as time has passed, or is it that we have become so numb to so many such encounters that we have lost patience with that metallic voice that has replaced the human one?  What is it about a recording that gets us so incensed?

Objectively, isn’t it all the same — we never “meet” the “person” anyway, whether it is a recording or a “real person” on the other end of the line: both are mere voices, but why is the automated recording so much more irritating than a live person?  Is it because we know the futility of landing a sarcastic response to the recording, as opposed to slamming our frustrations upon an individual who possesses feelings, and whose day we can potentially ruin by shouting, yelling, demeaning and spewing forth destructive epithets to and against?

In life generally, we all have them — options.  Sometimes, we are confronted with too many, and thus are left with a confounding sense of confusion.  At other times, the options are “there” somewhere, but we just don’t know them because we are too blind to the ones hidden or too stubborn to concede our ignorance.  In those instances, it is best to consult with someone who can present the options hidden, those unstated, or otherwise unknown.

In some circumstances, of course, the options available may be severely limited — as in a Federal or Postal employee suffering 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 the Federal or Postal employee’s essential job functions.  In such situations, the limited options must be considered in light of the priorities one assigns to the values one accords: How important is one’s health?  Is the deterioration of one’s health as exacerbated by the job one is remaining in important enough to continue with?  If so, perhaps disability retirement is not the “right” option.

Stay and remain; resign, walk away or get terminated and do nothing; or file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  The three options presented must be considered in light of one’s health, the effects upon it if one remains, and whether the Federal Agency or the Postal Service will continue to tolerate one’s excessive absences, inability to perform many of the essential functions of one’s job, etc.

When, after the options are considered, the Federal or Postal employee decides to move forward in 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, then it is time to consider further options as well, such as whether one wants to represent one’s self in the process, like the old adage of that person who has a fool for a client — of representing one’s self.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The language divide

Why is it that language is often so far removed from the living of life?  Was Wittgenstein correct – that it is a distinct world, separate and apart, that really has nothing to do with the “reality” of an “objective” universe?  Was Russell’s cutting quips about the bald King of France a way to point out that the primitive outlook of the traditional correspondence theory of language – that words, concepts, etc. are meant to parallel the objective world “out there” – doesn’t quite fit the proverbial bill, and that we are left with a linguistic universe insularly created and forever divided from the noumenal world that Kant had identified?

Take the following short puzzle that was recently heard: “There are eleven birds sitting on the telephone wire.  A young boy takes a gun and shoots one, and kills it. How many are left on the telephone wire?” Now, the answer to that minor conundrum should be quite elementary, but depends upon how we approach it.

From a mathematical viewpoint, one simply takes the numbers – a purely “theoretical” approach, divorced from the reality of the objective world in which we live, and subtract the 1 dead bird shot by the young lad, from the original number of birds identified on the telephone wire, and come up with the correct answer: 10 are left, because 1 was shot and killed, and therefore the mathematical equation: 11 – 1 = 10.  But it turns out that the correct answer is: “None”.  Why?  Because once the boy fired the gun and killed the 1, all of the others flew away.  Now, one can scratch one’s head and say with self-effacement, “Of course!  That only makes sense!”  Or, one can pause and say, “Now, why wasn’t that as obvious as the answer now seems, after it is pointed out to me?”

Now, contrast that with “real life”:  A hunter goes with his loyal dog and flushes out 3 pheasants from the forest; he takes aim and kills 2; 1 gets away.  He is later asked, “How many did you get?”  He answers, “Two.”  He is asked:  “Any left behind?”  The hunter looks at the questioner quizzically, with some puzzlement.  Why?  Because the question doesn’t quite make any sense – why would you ask such a question?

The fact is that there is a language divide – in real life, asking “how many are left” is not a relevant question, because the reality of living one’s life has already revealed the reality of the living.  It is only when we turn reality into an insularity ensconced within a theoretical construct does it become a thinking universe divorced from the objective world around us.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the issue of the language divide is a reality that the Federal or Postal worker must live with each and every day of your life.  That is because you live with a medical condition – the deteriorating effects, the daily symptoms, the chronic pain, numbness, gait imbalance, dizziness, vertigo, cognitive dysfunctions, etc.  The “world of language” doesn’t quite “understand” the reality of the medical condition, and is often inadequate to describe or decipher the sensations experienced.

That being said, in order to formulate an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, the language divide must nevertheless be bridged; for, an effective Federal Disability Retirement application must by necessity enter the world of language – of the Applicant’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A), the medical reports, and legal argumentation with persuasive force; and it is the language divide itself which must become the vehicle for an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, so that when the single bird is shot, there aren’t any left to speak about on the telephone wire that connects language to the reality of one’s life.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire