OPM Disability Retirement: The Winning Argument

Most arguments are not won by sheer force of logical persuasion; for, that would require the assumption that not only does everyone think “logically”, but that everyone also has been versed in the technicalities of propositional and syllogistic logic, has studied them and accepted them as overriding and dominant methodologies of discourse.

We like to harken back to the classical period of civilization’s cradle and cloak our biases with Aristotle’s dictum that we are all “rational animals” — implying thereby that our thought processes are powered by a predetermined set of algorithms characterized by the model of a supercomputer.  Yet, we — as fallible human beings ourselves — instinctively know better.  People do not think, leaving aside argue, by mere logical rules and discourses of such modalities; there are almost always other factors involved, whether of emotional ties, internal egoistical motivations or just the pure and unadulterated need to win at every engagement.

Aside from such human factors, however, is there an “objective” standard that characterizes a “winning argument”?

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, it is essential to put together a FERS Disability Retirement application with this in mind: How to effectively put forth your case with “the winning argument”.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is never there to “rubber stamp” a Federal Disability Retirement application.  They are there to parse, tear apart and potentially undermine, and it is important to recognize the pitfalls and shortcomings of your particular case before putting together arguments that will ultimately win your case.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law today so that you can begin to formulate “the winning argument” that will obtain an approval of your Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Calculus of Change

The title itself is somewhat of a tautology, for the branch of mathematics is defined as a study of change, divided into differential calculus and integral calculus; both, concerning the function and limits of mathematical constancy and potential quantum leaps for purposes of analyzing quantitative future applications.

We all assume some amount of change; if there is a differential to be considered, the rate of such change can be significant over an extended period of time, whereas the initial analysis can be a minimal irrelevancy.  It is the exponential rate of change applied over a lengthy period, which can produce change significant enough to enter into the calculus of future indicators.

Change is a recognized inevitability, though human expectation is often one of dependency upon the constancy of habituation and permanence.  We expect, when we open a door into a familiar room, for the interior decoration to have remained the same as the last time we entered; but who is to say that a spouse or family member did not, in the meantime, rearrange the furniture or put up new curtains?

Change has an inherent character of disquietude; it is the constancy of repetitive permanence which allows for solitary reflection and comfort.

Thus, for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are contemplating 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 disruption posed by the change in one’s circumstances — of fiscal, professional, social, cognitive and physical (i.e., the mere act of going to work each day, etc.) — can be tremendous and traumatic.

In preparing and formulating one’s Federal Disability Retirement application, it is always a positive engagement of efforts to consider the calculus of change, and to not leave the alterations in one’s life in dismissive form as mere statistical irrelevance.

For, in the end, the biggest change of all has already occurred, in the form of an impacting medical condition which has prevented the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties in the Federal or Postal sector; the rest is mere window dressing to the very essence of a changed life.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Law: Arguing by Logical Extension

Often, in legal argumentation, one must simply use the available evidence garnered, and make the best of it.  In many areas of law, especially in administrative legal venues involving Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, the law favors agencies which hide behind the shield of “efficiency of the Federal Service”, in implementing sanctions, adverse actions, restrictions of leave usage, proposing and deciding upon removals (whether based upon reasons of medical conditions or other basis), etc.

In a typical OPM Disability Retirement case, however, there are just as many procedural and substantive legal precedents which can be utilized effectively to favor the Federal and Postal employee.

For Federal and Postal employees under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, who intend upon filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the vast array from the arsenal of statutes, case-law, legal precedents and interpretive advantages gained through years and decades of predecessors to one’s present filing, should be recognized, researched and reapplied at every available opportunity.  For, if the greatest compliment that one can accord to another in the world of art, is one of mimicry and plagiarism, so in the world of law, it is to take the precedent of past legal victories, and to argue to the fullest the logical extension thereof.

That often occurs, unfortunately, only when it is a “hard case“, as opposed to the ones where there is little to no room for argument because of the overwhelming evidence available.  It is, in the end, an unfortunate circumstance that, often the test of brilliance manifests when the case is weak, and one must utilize the capacity available through means of arguing by logical extension, because that is precisely what is left — argument, logic, and extension of the first two principles.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire