OPM Medical Retirement: The Long, Hard Slog

Much of life can be characterized as such, and those unwilling to endure the concept are either left behind or end in interminable voids of unsolvable problems.  The slog itself is long, hard and uninteresting — one of making it through the day, of life activities, lacking meaning or substance, often unexciting and barely tolerable.

Especially in this country, where we have lost any sense of community, and we barely even know our neighbors, leaving aside our own family.  Life becomes a long, hard slog when relationships break down and we come to believe that “meaning” is attached to objects and possessions, or in having a “cause” to believe in.

Like Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the hill only to see it roll back down the other side, we wonder perpetually and question daily the meaning of it all.

We have abandoned the idea of  “the true, the beautiful, and the good” — the triadic concept which can be traced back to Plato paralleling the fields of knowledge, art, and morality, essentially encompassing the Western Philosophical tradition which provided the foundation of our educational system.

However, since we no longer believe in truth, have denigrated art, and abandoned morality, we are left with an anarchy of thoughtless vacuity where we are each isolated by the grandness of our own opinions.  Everywhere the seams of civilization appear to be unraveling, and we are left alone with the hard and long slog.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal employees who suffer from a chronic illness or injury which further complicates and exacerbates the long hard slog, it must be understood that the process of attempting to be approved for FERS Disability Retirement benefits itself is a long bureaucratic slog itself — a reflective microcosm of the greater societal long slog, and it must be viewed as such if you are to survive the battles ahead.

In preparing for that long and hard slog, you may want to contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and consider what it will take to prepare of the long administrative slog of trying to win the battle against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS laws.

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 Disability Retirement Law: The Bridge of Logic

In an era of idealism (a historical time slot which we are not presently experiencing), it may have been thought that the concept itself would bring greater harmony, world peace, empathy for the disabled, and a larger sense of community.

The Western, Aristotelian view of a “good life” involved the refusal to submit to extremes — whether of passions, beliefs, gluttony or feelings — and that moderation was the key to a balanced life, where the appetitive nature of man would be mastered by one’s intellect.  Bertrand Russell borrowed from this tradition, and defined the “good life” as one “inspired by love and guided by knowledge”, where the feelings and passions of a person would be constrained and directed by the bridge of logic.

The metaphorical play of a “bridge” — an image evoking a “connection” or a “nexus” — leading away from the natural passions inherent in Man, is an interesting one.  For, it somewhat presumes (A) a necessity and need for such a path leading away from the nature of Man, and (B) that somehow logic does not constitute and comprise the natural state of man, but is a needed addendum in order to “civilize” an otherwise unruly beast.

Perhaps that is so, and certainly in modernity the bridge of logic is in need of major repairs.

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 basic elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, make sure that the health condition itself — of the pain, of physical and psychological dysfunctioning resulting from the health condition — does not dominate in your persuasive argumentation in presenting your case to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Rather, the Bridge of Logic must be carefully employed — of the nexus between your medical condition and the essential elements of your positional duties.

Contact an experienced lawyer who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law, and don’t let the disrepair of modernity’s bridge of logic be the loss of a pathway necessary to connect the necessary eligibility requirements in an OPM Federal Disability Retirement filing.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill

Attorney exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: The Advocate

It is the ability to see things that you may not; of knowing the laws that apply, the arguments which will work, the evidence to be submitted; these, and many more, make “the advocate” worth the price to be paid.  Certainly, expenses have to be considered, but as the old adage goes, “You get what you pay for”, and you need to be careful in considering what is included.

When you call the office which you are considering as your “advocate”, does someone call you back fairly soon after leaving a voicemail?  Do you get to speak to an actual lawyer — the one who should be working on your case, or do you — instead — only speak to a paralegal or someone who claims the title of, “Disability Specialist”?

What, in fact, is a “Disability Specialist”?  If not a lawyer, then no amount of “specialty” in the field makes a bit of difference.  Who will be working on your case?  Will your case be sloughed off to some clerk or “legal specialist”, or will you actually be getting what you think you are paying for — an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from OPM, contact Robert R. McGill, Attorney at Law, and be assured that he himself, and not someone else, will be working on your case.  He will, indeed, be “The Advocate” who will fight on your behalf.

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

 

OPM Medical Retirement Legal Representation: Simplicity

There is certainly something to be said about it.  But, then, by adding to the very word itself, there is always a danger of complicating the very concept implied from the singular word that stands alone as a paradigm of striving, a goal to attain, an end to achieve.

“Simplicity” is a state of being, a characteristic of existence and the pinnacle of wishes in dreams fantasized.  Yet, nowhere in the historical archives of any fairytales of yore, in whatever form and differences of versions presented — you know, the one that involves a genie who allows for 3 wishes to be granted to the lucky one — do you find the individual request: Simplicity.

No, instead, it is the complex which is always wished for: More wealth; the key to the universe; eternal youth; to be the “greatest X”; or any other of a number of states of being or accumulation of stuff that will only further complicate one’s life.  Never, ever, does one wish for: Simplicity.  Yes, that is what everyone all over the world always claims to be striving for, while at the same time doing everything in order to undermine it.  Does one think that acquiring greater wealth, being granted eternal immortality or an extended childhood of innocence will result in the attainment of simplicity?

And of the world that promises anything but delivers short on everything, the empty palms begin to echo hollow: This new technological gadget X will be a greater time-saver and will “simplify” your life; and that shortcut invention Y will allow you to “spend more time doing the things you want to do”…  If we could bottle up all of the minutes promised to have been saved for every gadget offered, we should all be living the life of simplicity in a stress-free universe.

What becomes apparent is that simplicity is a malleable concept that cannot so easily be defined, and is bundled up with a conundrum of complexities depending upon one’s perspective and viewpoint.  For example, for the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from a medical condition and who needs to file a Federal Disability Retirement application — is the process of presenting proof to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management a matter of administrative simplicity such that completing SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, can be accomplished without proper legal guidance?

The form itself looks simple enough; the questions posed, an artwork of simplicity; and the space in the boxes provide, a simple couple of inches of allowances; so how can such simplicity present a complexity of legal entanglements?

Until, of course, one realizes that simplicity is often the trap for the unweary: look upon that pinnacle of simplicity wrapped in the morning sunlight where the dew forms upon a spider’s web — ah, such simplicity in nature, awaiting the unweary to be trapped and irreversibly enmeshed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Retirement for Mental or Physical Incapacity: Perilous times

It can refer to the particular or the general, interchangeably almost without thought.  To refer to these “perilous times” is to ascribe to a particular period, an epoch or an era, an acknowledgment that the surrounding days and months are unique from all other timeframes of perceived dangers and tumultuous upheavals.  Or, it can be quite personal — where one describes specific circumstances concerning one’s own life, one’s situation and the peculiarities of a life otherwise undisturbed by circumstances that stand out.

There is that expansive “we” form that can distinguish between the particular and the general, as in, “We live in perilous times.”  Or, one can personalize it and declare to a friend in confidence, “I live in a state of peril” or “My life reflects these perilous times.”  The latter, of course, implies both the particular and the general by including not only the personal aspect of one’s upheaval but the generality of the historical context within which we all walk about.  Perilous times, indeed.

Medical conditions tend to specifically impact individuals in this way — for, in the particular, it hits upon us as a crisis of quality.  How we have lived; the lifestyle we have chosen; the priorities of what constitutes “worthiness”; all of these are challenged by a medical condition that begins to insidiously eat away at our body, our mind, our spirit.

Whether by intrusion of pain or something within us that no longer “works” normally; of private functions that have become worn out, or perhaps it is the memory, mental capacity or ability to cope with daily stresses; but of whatever origin or outcome, we look about for cures and comfort and often find none but some palliative form in a pill or a surgery that fails to correct.  Times become perilous because of circumstances beyond our control.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, perilous times often require perilous choices, and preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, becomes a necessary next step in attempting to forestall the inevitable results of these very times that we deem to be perilous, whether in a particular sense or in a more generalized historical context.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Legal Representation: Sad stories

Is sadness relative?  Are there sad stories that are so sad that even the ones that were considered sad prior to the sadder story being told, somehow nullify the lesser sad stories and make them into not sad stories?  Do we, after hearing the sadder tale, turn to the first story teller and say, “Yours was not so sad, after all, and in fact you have it pretty good”?

If a person tells of having just buried his mother, and you ask, “How old was she?”  He responds, “She was 95”.  Then, someone else says, “I just had to bury my 5 year old daughter.”  There would be a dead silence, would there not?  Surely, we say to ourselves, the death of a person who had a long life is not nearly as sad as the ending of one so tender in years, and as death is merely a part of life, there is something inherently sadder about the child’s life ending than that of a person who had a long life?

Both represent a life ended, but it is the knowledge that the former had fulfilled the natural course of a life while the latter was the victim of an early tragedy, unnaturally ended and interrupted for all of its promise, hope and anticipation for the future – surely, there is a qualitative difference between the two sad tales?

Or of someone who was recently fired from a job and is desperately trying to seek new employment; say that person is looking through the want-ads in the employment section (yes, yes, that is entirely outdated nowadays with special apps for resume-sharing and online submissions, etc.), and in the course of searching, reads a story about a far-off country where war, famine and general devastation are ongoing, and discovers with interest a sub-story about a family that is homeless and is being hunted down by enemies, etc.  Does one at that point straighten one’s posture and declare, “Wow, even though I am jobless, I have it pretty good in comparison to that family in country X”?

Yet, if sadness is relative, does that necessarily negate the sad tale completely, or does it merely reduce its impact and value until another comparative judgment is made?  Do we go and search out a less sad tale after debunking the sadness of one’s own with a sadder tale, in order to “restore” the sadness of our own?  Or, does each sadness remain a sadness in isolation regardless of the comparative sadness to another’s?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the sadness of that medical condition becomes such and to an extent where the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, it may become necessary to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, ultimately filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Sadness aside, every tale of ending a career is a sadness in and of itself, but the key to getting beyond any such sadness rests in the next steps, not in the footsteps of one’s past or those of others, but in getting good legal advice and moving on into the next phase of one’s future.  Anything else would, whether in comparison to another’s sadness or not, be the truly sad tale of sadness defined.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer Representation OPM Disability Retirement: Perspective versus reality

One may counter that the contrast is no different than that which we encounter daily, especially in this universe of millennials and post-millennial era – of opinion versus fact, or truth versus falsehood (and now the new one, of “news” versus “fake news” or “facts” versus “alternative facts”).  But “perspective” versus “reality” has some subtle nuances that need to be explicated.  For one thing, one’s perspective may be identical to the reality one possesses a perspective upon; or, more likely, it is merely an interpretation that may differ from someone else’s.

One could, of course, argue that all of reality is merely a perspective, and this would comport with the Kantian view that our phenomenological experiences can never depict the “noumenal” universe (Kant’s verbiage) that is outside of the categorical impositions of our human make-up, and that therefore the human perspective is something that cannot be avoided, anymore than a dog’s perspective can be assumed or challenged, or a bat’s perspective (refer to Thomas Nagel on that) would be understood or comprehended by a human’s perspective.

In other words, we can never completely disown the perspective imposed by the innate structures of our own “kind”, and thus it may be an error to ever represent a contrast between “perspective” and “reality” (thus the misnomer of the title above, “Perspective versus reality”), but should always encompass and embrace a commensurate connection of “Perspective of reality” (a consonance of the two) or “Perspective and reality” (a conjoining compatibility of both).

Yet, we know that certain people interpret things differently from what we believe constitutes an accurate portrayal of “reality”.  However, so long as we stay within certain confines of accepted normative interpretations, we rarely contest or openly disagree with alternative depictions, unless it is to obtain a consensus that somehow disproves the validity of the other’s portrayal (i.e., “Yes, but John, Joe and May agree with me”, as if quantification of perspectives somehow diminishes the accuracy of another’s; as opposed to saying, “Well, Copernicus thought otherwise while the rest of the world continued to maintain a geocentric perspective of the universe” – unless, of course, you are ignoring the “rest of the world” to include China, Japan, etc.),

Yet, there are factors that have to be considered when discussing the distinction between “perspective” and “reality”, and one of them often involves medical conditions – an element of reality that often skewers perspective.  That is why, for a Federal or Postal employee who is considering 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 importance of relying upon accurate information, good and sound legal advice, and a straight and narrow path towards a successful outcome with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (no matter the length of time it may take these days), is important.

For, medical conditions will often alter the perspective of an individual as to the reality of one’s situation, and so it is an “outside” source (the medical condition itself) which needs a counterbalancing force (otherwise referred to as an “objective” advocate, i.e., a lawyer) in order to present an effective, objective, persuasive representative in order to “re-present” the perspective of the Federal Disability Retirement applicant.  Thus, in short, it is a perspective versus reality issue, and thus not entirely a misnomer as previously stated.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The Glare of Another

What we do in response to outside stimuli; whether we flee, prepare to defend, aggressively pursue, or otherwise stand idle with resignation and do nothing; whither to stand in consternation or to wither without care; throughout, it is the glare of the world, whether by glint of sunlight upon objects surrounding us, or through another’s eyes which magnify the hostility abounding, which requires our tepid psyche to stir in turmoil.

The test of life is often not in others, but in ourselves.  By then, perhaps the fight is gone; maybe the slow and incremental shavings that took years to whittle away, manifest a pile of residue left behind, and forever depleting any reserve of response, or stir a final call to arms.

Life has a way of deadening the soul, but it is often the glare of another which provokes the stirrings of the remains of the day.  When driving, the sudden glare of sunlight results in a raised hand or reaching for the visor, without thought, in a protective mode; or a reactive temper arising in response to an offending pair of eyes directed with hostility and provocation; in either case, life stirs, and the vestiges of a fight thought lost and gone forever, return with a vengeance and a fury of energy and strength.  Don’t ever think that the battle is lost, lest surrender means giving in to cowardice and contemptuous cocoon’s of cornered avarice.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who daily suffer the indignities of harassment and malice at the hands of the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, who have “given their all” throughout these years, decades and large sections of life and time, the need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management can often be determined by the level of fight left in one’s self.  Like squinting an eye to examine the level of oil left by pulling out the long and flexible dipstick from the deep caverns of an engine hidden under the hood of a vehicle, the need to stop and examine one’s life represents a pitstop at a station of reserve.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM is not a surrender of any magnitude; it is, rather, a response which shows that necessity is recognized, that there is life beyond the “mission of the agency” or the “important work” of the U.S. Postal Service, and being treated in ways demeaning does not mandatorily correlate to one’s deteriorating health.

Preparing, formulating and filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is not an indicator of one’s reserve of strength or vitality left in check, but rather the necessary response, thoughtlessly reactive or otherwise, when the glare of another hits the Federal or Postal employee without warning or prefatory contingencies, and when life and living are realized and identified as precious beyond mere voodoo of echoing motions set long ago in a time when youth beckoned beyond call of purpose.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The Soul of a Case

If you ascribe something to everything, then nothingness results.  For, to declare that all of X is contained in Y is to delete X into irrelevancy, and leave Y with nothing but X, thereby subsuming everything with nothing.  Thus, when we argue for a form of pantheism, the language of “all” tends to diminish the uniqueness of singularity, and the meanings of distinction and difference.  Fortunately, however, separate identities naturally manifest for specific entities where the exceptional outshines the mundane.

For human beings, the exceptional occurs daily precisely because there exist no mundane souls, only ones whose lives have developed a callousness to tragedy so thick that empathy has been extinguished for the price of a forgotten soul.  Thus do we have the proverbial “faceless bureaucrat” who merely stamps all incoming papers with repetitive monotony, and fails to view the content and substantive humanity beneath the surface of the linguistic mirage of daily deluge.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers formulating one’s Federal Disability Retirement application, that is the door one is attempting to unlock, isn’t it?  Every case has a unique “soul” to it; but from the viewpoint of a bureaucracy, such an argument only extinguishes the singularity of one’s own extraordinary circumstances into all others, and by doing so, that “something” becomes mere nothingness.

The key to cut through to the soul of the administrative process is by revealing the separateness of a Federal Disability Retirement case with the individuality of “this” case, in “this” instance, for “this” reason.

That is a tall order to fulfill.

For, as each Federal Disability Retirement application has a human story to tell, so the paper presentation to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, must provide a narrative with a soul, and one which is not merely one among many, but unique in its singularity of particular facts and circumstances.  In other words, the “soul” of the case must be delineated with a soulful echo of humanity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire