Federal Government Employee Disability Retirement Help: The Lengthy Process

The wheels of justice churn slowly — a statement, with all of its variances, which we are quite familiar with.  Those who have participated in the judicial system — whether in criminal law, civil litigation or administrative law (which is what filing an OPM Federal Disability Retirement / Medical Retirement applications falls under) — have experienced the reality of the metaphor.

It is often a burdensome endeavor, and one which encompasses, entails and encapsulates a deliberative body of a bureaucratic morass.

Can it be more efficient?  Can the “wheels of justice” be made to proceed faster?  No matter what the venue or forum — unless, perhaps, a case is filed in some sleepy midwestern town with a population of less than 100 — the volume of cases filed often dictates the efficiency of any legal venue entered.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, expect that it will remain a lengthy process.  Within the confines of a lengthy process, however, to make the most of an inefficient system, contact a Federal Retirement Lawyer who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, as an expert in the field will be able to make the most out of an otherwise inefficient system.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Virtual Reality

Say a person says to you, “I was in Japan last night.”  You had just seen him the day before, and so you might quickly calculate how many hours it would take for a flight to Japan, how long he could have stayed there and then flown back; and, perhaps you would unduly confuse yourself by thinking, “Perhaps the time-zone shift is such that yesterday is today and today is actually tomorrow’s today because of the international time-zone shift”, or some similar nonsense as that which often confuses and confounds us all (in fact, isn’t that how we always feel when we must change the clocks for that “Spring Forward” and “Fall Back” period?).

You study the person’s features and determine that he looks refreshed, without a hint of sleeplessness.  Upon coming to the conclusion that, No, it is not possible that your friend had actually gone to Japan and back, you say to him or her: “What do you mean by that?”  The person says, “Just what I said.  I visited Japan last night.  I went on a tour of Kyoto, a couple of shrines, saw the cherry blossoms and had a couple of meals and drank some sake and then went to bed.”  And you take that sliver of an opportunity — that phrase, “I visited” combined with, “then went to bed”, and with suspicious deliciousness as of a genius private detective who has singularly uncovered a mystery, declare: “Aha! You mean you were on your computer and took a virtual tour of the country!”  To which your friend says: “You can put it that way.  I say that I was in Japan last night.”

In this world where virtual reality and reality itself has been conflated, the words we use have similarly broken out of their previous state of rigidity.  Whether of “alternative truths” or misstatement of facts, the malleability of language has had to adapt and conform to the changes of reality.  Is there a distinction with a difference between a person who takes a “virtual tour” of a country, as opposed to actually, physically flying there and walking about the lost ruins of Peru?  To the question, “So, did you visit the Sistine Chapel while there?” — both and either may provide a detailed description of their independent and individual experiences, and do so convincingly; and even to the question, “Were you really there?” — the answer can be identical and yet truthful.

Yet, there are some things in life that still defy conflating virtual reality with the “real” reality — such as injuries or disabilities.  For, “virtual” injuries and “virtual” disabilities do not impact the identical experiential phenomena of the “real deal”, and for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a real medical condition such that the reality of that condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, you may want to consider filing for FERS Disability Retirement benefits.

Before you do that, however, consult with a “real” Federal and Postal Disability Retirement Lawyer, lest a “virtual” one provides you only with virtual advice, in which case it won’t be worth any more than a virtual dollar used to pay for a virtual meal.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Inconsistencies

Selective extrapolation is the preferred method by which they justify a denial; a notation taken out of context from this particular day, or an offhand comment in response to a nurse’s question on a differentiated day where you may be feeling slightly better, etc.

Inconsistencies remain the harbinger of a denial of a FERS Medical Retirement application from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Yet, life is full of inconsistencies, and one can even argue that inconsistencies are the stamp of reality — that sincerity of life’s events are replete with contradictions and spectrums of bumps; that perfection is often a greater indication of artifice, instead of life’s reality that is actually lived.

That is the anomaly and the inconsistency itself: Perfection of circumstances is the real artifice; lack of perfection, the reality of living life.  Yet, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management reviews a Federal Disability Retirement application in the very opposite way; they search out the inconsistencies, then allege that those inconsistencies somehow rise to the level of artifice, when all along they merely reflect the reality of life itself, replete with inconsistencies that betray the lack of perfection which truth itself brings.

Thus, beware when the doctor or nurse writes in a note, “Feeling much better today” — for, although you still hobble about because of a broken body or are unable to focus or concentrate because of a psychiatric condition, the inconsistency between a singular notation and the reality reflected in one’s medical condition is the weaponized methodology of a Federal Agency which seeks out such inconsistencies as a basis for a denial.

As such, a Federal employee or U.S. Postal Service worker who seeks to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits should turn for advice and counsel to an experienced Attorney who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law to make sure that the inconsistencies may be minimized in the impact upon a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer Representation for OPM Disability Claims: Hypotheticals

Why do lawyers, above most other professions, utilize the tool of hypotheticals?  What is their evidentiary value, and in what way does it help to advance the cause of one’s case?

Say, for instance, you need an architect or an engineer (yes, yes, the humor here is that in speaking about hypotheticals, we are preparing to present one), would you be at all impressed if, after describing with precision the type of product you desire to have built, or in requesting a blueprint of a model house you are interested in, the architect or the engineer presents you with a hypothetical?

What, first of all, is a ‘hypothetical’?  It is, first and foremost, a proposition of non-existence, but with components of reality that may or may not have occurred or existed except in partial or disparate forms, delineated in an attempt to make or prove a point.  It is the tool of the attorney, just as the pencil and the blueprint are the resources of the architect, and the mathematical calculations the reliance of the engineer.  Often, it is used by means of analogical content to prove a point and to enhance the evidence gathered.

Take, for example, the lawyer who defended a bank robber.  He meets his client for the first time, and the criminal defense lawyer puts up a hand in order to stop his client from speaking, and says the following: “Now, take the following hypothetical, Mr. Dillinger: A man walks into a bank and hands a note to the teller that says, ‘Give me everything in your drawers.’  Now, that man was subsequently arrested.  No cash was ever exchanged; no weapon was ever found.  The question, then, is: What was meant by the words?  Only you know.  If, by way of a hypothetical, the man meant to obtain the contents of the teller’s drawer, it might mean 10 years in prison.  If, on the other hand, the note meant to be a lewd proposal about the teller’s anatomy beneath her undergarments, it would likely be a misdemeanor offense.  Now, Mr. Dillinger, which is it?”

Now, aside from some who would view such a presentation as somewhat unethical for “suggesting”, on the part of the lawyer, which intended “meaning” the defendant possessed at the time the note was passed, such a hypothetical is intended to denote the importance of hypotheticals within the purview of “the law”.  Hypotheticals allow for individuals to see the differences in paradigms or examples; it allows for options by way of analogy.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition where 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, hypotheticals have quite likely become like unicorns and gnomes: no longer a figment of one’s imagination, but a reality that must be faced within a surreal universe of a Federal Agency or the Postal Service that fails to possess the humanity necessary in dealing with a person with failing health.

Words of platitudes are often spoken; and, perhaps, here and there, you come across someone at your agency that actually cares.  But for the most part, such “caring” amounts to no more of a reality than mere hypotheticals; and when that realization comes about that the clash between hypotheticals and reality must be confronted, it is time to get down to the “nuts and bolts” and prepare, formulate and file a Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

And, as an aside, you may be asking, What was Mr. Dillinger’s response to the lawyer’s hypothetical? He punched the lawyer in the mouth, stood up and said, “Jeez, I ain’t no pervert!  Of course I wanted the money!”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

 

OPM Disability Retirement: The inconspicuous individual

Some cannot fathom that role; anonymity in modernity is replaced with the trolling Internet personality; for, there, where one can allow for multiple personalities, schizophrenia and megalomania to rule and manifest, the instinct of the aggressive dominates.  What is it about Facebook, Forums and Fortuitous Forays into Freedom’s Foundation that vanquishes modesty in the face of hiding behind the curtain of anonymity?

There is a conceptual distinction to be made between the inconspicuous individual who desires to remain in the background and enjoy the role of observant but inactive participant, and those who act with modesty and decorum by all appearances, but beneath seethe with the acrimony of jealousy, envy and inadequacy who then utilizes the power of impersonation and trolls the Internet to ridicule, criticize, harass and intimidate.

Traditional discussion and debate required four components:  (1) An unspoken concurrence to engage in the exchange of ideas within a context of gentlemanly decorum and behavior of self-restraint (i.e., in more modern parlance, to not take things personally); (2) To listen without interruption when another is speaking; (3) To understand and apply the rules of logic when positing an idea or introducing a conceptual paradigm; and (4) To recognize a superior argument to one’s own, and submit/admit to it gracefully.

There is, moreover, a fifth element that is never addressed, because it is one that used to be accepted by everyone:  Don’t raise your voice, as it is the quality of the idea pursued and not the excessive volume of debate that matters, and recognize that not everyone is of equal intellectual capacity, such that silence is sometime preferable to a mouth opened merely to make sounds.

Do any of those traditional “rules” apply today?  Are there, in modernity, those who win medals for bravery, or championships in the sports arena, without a subsequent ride upon the lecture circuit, the television appearance and the book-deal that demands an advance of remuneration?  Is there, in short, the existence of the inconspicuous individual in this day and age?

Perhaps modesty is an outmoded concept; humility, a dead characteristic of arcane quality destroyed with the diminishing influence of religiosity; and as empowerment has been replaced by the tortured utterances of the shouting voices on the Internet, so the extinction of the inconspicuous individual is a reality in today’s cackle of overriding voices.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition impacts, prevents and interrupts the ability and capacity of the Federal or Postal employee to perform the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the ability to remain inconspicuous is something that is sought after, but unfortunately, unable to be maintained.  In the context of suffering from a medical condition, the desire to remain inconspicuous (i.e., staying “under the radar”, so to speak proverbially) is that rarity of modernity, but a necessity by compulsion; for, the alternative is to become a target of the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service.

Thus, the word of advice from this lawyer is that, in the process of preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the better time to inform one’s Supervisor, Manager or the Agency in general, is “later” rather than sooner, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise; lest, of course, you desire the accelerated extinction to occur for that dying breed identified as the inconspicuous individual.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

How to Handle an OPM Disability Retirement Claim: Tempered Approaches

Life is often a linear experience of extremes; this is an age when expectations call for responses of excess, and not of minimization.

There is no sense of an “eye for an eye” — a proportional sense of fair play, or of deescalation of conflict; rather, as we become callous and conditioned to shock therapy of the cultural sort, so there is little to amaze or to surprise, and by the first grade, the child of modernity has experienced it all, from profane language to stories of war, murder and mayhem in the streets.

Once upon a time, innocence was protected and valued for preservation of character; today, the fairy tale of yore is a politically incorrect compendium of hateful speech, replaced by extremes of thought where thinking itself is a danger to one’s self. Collaterally, so the responses one observes must also tip the balance of tempered terminals of tolerance.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must enter into the world of bureaucratic morass, when a medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to perform all of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, it is important to maintain a tempered balance of rational thought.

Medical conditions themselves induce an atmosphere of extremes; fear of progressive deterioration, of an uncertain future, and sudden reaction by supervisors, coworkers and the agency as a whole for whom one works.

In such an environment of toxicity, it is important to maintain a reasoned, rational approach in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, and to recognize that it is first and foremost a “paper presentation” submitted to another agency altogether separate and apart from the agency of one’s own hostile work environment — the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — and as such, should not carry over unnecessarily the unrelated and unconnected toxicity of one’s own Federal agency.

In the end, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM must of necessity contain an inherent sense of urgency because of the very nature of the endeavor; but throughout, a tempered approach of calm confidence should pervade, even if the world around us seemingly falls apart in a morass and deluge of deliberate deterioration.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer: Unrehearsed Spontaneity

In the absence of a coherent plan, one is left with the ad hoc approach of a sometimes delicious unfolding of unrehearsed spontaneity.  Dinner conversations; an unplanned visit; a sudden windfall; an inheritance from a long-lost relative; these are all desirable circumstances to suddenly befall; but most things in life require some extent of planning, and to expect positive results in the same manner as a string of lucky draws, is to ask for failure in the face of unrealistic anticipatory happenstance.

Medical conditions fall into the category of unexpected events; how one responds to it, what steps are taken, and where one goes from the discovery of the information — these are determinable follow-ups.  We often confuse and bundle together causation with effects.

Hume’s bifurcation via use of billiard balls as an example, illustrates the point of recognizing the importance of identifying that “necessary connection” which is lacking when discussing the universe of inception and result.  Some things happen without rational basis or knowable justification; but where we have the capacity to engage an active hand in a matter, the consequences we perceive from our affirmative participation can be defined and comprehensive.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who find that a medical condition has impacted his or her ability and capacity to continue in the Federal or Postal job, it is important to recognize that unrehearsed spontaneity is fine for a time, but not for planning the course of one’s future.

Preparing, formulating and 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, requires the cogent and deliberative gathering of relevant medical documentation; the capacity to compile the compendium of proof in order to qualify; and the application of legal argumentation in combining medical information with legal significance, in order to persuasively submit an effective Federal Disability Retirement packet.

Approvals are not won by mere happenstance; luck in a Federal Disability Retirement application is not based upon a lottery ticket purchased, forgotten, and suddenly viewed for statistical improbabilities; rather, it is a focused approach upon a bureaucratic process where the coalescence of facts, law, and preponderance of the evidence are compiled with a deliberative approach.

Leave the delicious moment of unrehearsed spontaneity to a dance under a sudden cloudburst; to prepare an OPM Disability Retirement application of efficacy and success, a wider approach of planning is necessary.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire