Federal OPM Disability Retirement: Life’s Spare Parts

They are left as insignificant cast asides, unused and unusable until an urgency of need mandates their sudden relevance; and in a changed moment, their utility determines the worth and value of existence and retention in the clutter of overabundance.  Like the spare tire that is never used, spare parts imply potential need, but the actualization of relevance occurs only when necessity dictates; otherwise, they are like the proverbial bench warmer on a sports team replete with talent and competitive excess.

Most people are seen and treated like spare parts; irrelevant entities taking up limited space, occupying a determined confluence of time, and enjoying the dimensions within a universe where black holes of irrelevance and clutter enjoy an overabundance of regularity.  If utility is the criteria of significance in a materialistic world, then most of us are relegated to irrelevance and uncompromised anonymity.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Workers who suddenly find themselves with a medical condition, such that the medical condition impacts one’s ability and capacity to remain relevant in the Federal Workforce, a primary concern is often the loss of status and stature within the employment world.

We all want to belong, to be making a “difference” of sorts; and even in the midst of a faceless bureaucracy, it is nice to be appreciated and receive periodic accolades for accomplishments otherwise unknown and undetermined.  But a pause tells us that relevance is short-lived and rarely endured; the terrain of untended graveyards throughout the world echoes the quietude of forgotten hopes and dreams, and in the end, it is only family and private relationships which matter.

OPM Disability benefits is a necessary venue of purpose; for Federal employees who cannot perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, it is a needed benefit in order to escape the toil of employment and allow for recuperation from one’s medical condition, and then to find greater relevance and opportunity in the private sector, and be allowed to make up to 80% of what one’s former Federal or Postal position currently compensates.

Persisting in an occupation which one can no longer do, is a foolhardy endeavor, at best; clinging on to a mistaken identity of significance, to the detriment of one’s health, is a death sentence determined by one’s own vanity.  For Federal and Postal workers who have a medical condition which prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, filing for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is the choice of wisdom, given the utilitarian perspective of the employment world.  It is a benefit which must be proven, and one must meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Considering the perspective of Federal agencies and the U.S. Postal Service, wherein individuals are mere spare parts to be discarded at the behest of those who consider themselves royalty within a universe of mediocrity, it is best to recognize that life’s spare parts find best their meaning and value when once a person escapes the treadmill of monotonous insignificance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Perspective from the Office of Personnel Management

In effective argumentation, persuasion, written memoranda, oral presentation, and the entire spectrum of attempting to convince the “other side” of the validity, force, appropriateness, and viability of any administrative or legal filing of any nature, it is often a useful tool to attempt to view an issue from that “other” perspective.

Remember that, in filing a Federal disability retirement application under FERS or CSRS, it is good to consider the fact that the OPM representative who will be reviewing your particular application, merely sees your application as one among hundreds of files assigned to him or her. With that in mind, the essential question becomes: How can my particular application, as one among many, be reviewed in such a way that it “stands apart” so that it will be quickly approved? If you ask that question, or any variation of such a question, then you may be taking a wrong approach.

Remember that filing for disability retirement under FERS or CSRS is not like applying for a job; you are not filing a resume that needs to stand out; rather, it is often best if your particular application is nothing more than a “run of the mill” application — with strong, unequivocal and irrefutable medical evidence, along with strong legal arguments to support your case. Yes, of course your Applicant’s Statement of Disability should explicitly describe the human condition of medical disablement; yes, the “nexus” between your medical condition and your job should be carefully constructed; but no, your application should not necessarily “stand out” as uniquely different — for such an application will often be viewed as “suspicious” and “over-stated”, and may well lead to not just a first viewing, but a re-viewing, and a possible denial

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability for Federal and Postal Employees: The Federal Disability Attorney

I often get calls from people who have filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, from people who are represented by an Attorney but who, for one reason or another, are not satisfied with the work that the attorney has performed.  It is not, in my opinion, proper for an attorney to criticize or judge the work of another attorney, because each attorney has his or her particular methodology in the practice of law.  The fact that another attorney’s methodology of practicing a specific area of law (in this case, Federal disability retirement law) may differ from mine is not a basis for me to criticize another attorney.  The mere fact that a disability retirement application, prepared and submitted by another attorney, is denied by the Office of Personnel Management, is not a basis for concluding that the application packet was prepared in less than a professional manner.  Indeed, if that were the case, I would be subject to the same type of criticism each time one of my client’s disability retirement application was denied at any given stage of the process.  Further, and more to the point, it is a waste of time to criticize the past; what another attorney did or failed to do is besides the point.  The focus needs to be:  What is necessary to move forward, compile additional supporting documentation, and help get the disability retirement packet approved at the next stage of the process.  As to whether or not an individual should switch attorneys mid-stream, that is not for me to say; as with everything in life, such determinations must be made based upon consideration of all of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the client must do what is in the best interest of his or her future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

I often get calls from people who have filed for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, from people who are represented by an Attorney but who, for one reason or another, are not satisfied with the work that the attorney has performed.  It is not, in my opinion, proper for an attorney to criticize or judge the work of another attorney, because each attorney has his or her particular methodology in the practice of law.  

The fact that another attorney’s methodology of practicing a specific area of law (in this case, Federal disability retirement law) may differ from mine is not a basis for me to criticize another attorney.  The mere fact that a disability retirement application, prepared and submitted by another attorney, is denied by the Office of Personnel Management, is not a basis for concluding that the application packet was prepared in less than a professional manner.  Indeed, if that were the case, I would be subject to the same type of criticism each time one of my client’s disability retirement application was denied at any given stage of the process.  

Further, and more to the point, it is a waste of time to criticize the past; what another attorney did or failed to do is besides the point.  The focus needs to be:  What is necessary to move forward, compile additional supporting documentation, and help get the disability retirement packet approved at the next stage of the process.  As to whether or not an individual should switch attorneys mid-stream, that is not for me to say; as with everything in life, such determinations must be made based upon consideration of all of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the client must do what is in the best interest of his or her future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire