Federal Employee Disability Retirement: The Fight

Not everyone relishes one.  Yet, the challenge comes about often when we do not expect it, when our proverbial defenses are down and we cannot muster the energy to properly engage it.  For children on the rough-and-tumble playgrounds, it can be over in a matter of minutes, where a few black eyes, a scrape and a bruise may be the worst of it.  For adults who actually engage in a fist fight, more serious consequences may ensue, and beyond hurt egos and wounded pride, there are laws against assaulting and battering.

But there are many other forms of “fighting”; of neighbors squabbling over overgrown trees which cross fence lines; of public debates and shaming; of aggressive trolls on the Internet.  Time was where once there were unspoken “rules” (like no hitting below the belt; no scratching or kicking, etc.), but with all-out “mixed martial arts” and other forms of unfettered fights, it seems that the art form (if there ever was one) is gone, and the only thing which matters is the outcome.

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 worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the “fight” is against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and fortunately for those who engage in this fight, there are rules by which all combatants must abide: The Statutes, Rules, Regulations and Case-Laws that circumscribe and dictate how the fight must be implemented and managed.

Consult with a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and find out what the rules are governing Federal Disability Retirement Law before you are in the “thick of it”; for, you do not want to have been taken unawares by a sucker-punch before you know what to expect.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: A Lifetime

Isn’t that enough?  Shouldn’t it be?  Or, do we feel obligated to append a dependent clause, as in, “A lifetime of achievements,” “…of having accomplished X, Y and Z”, or even: “A Lifetime devoted to…”.  Must there always be the subsequent appendage, or isn’t living a lifetime enough in and of itself?

Was Aristotle right in depicting human beings (and everything else in the universe) as possessing a purposive reason for existence; or, as the French Existentialist had declared, does existence precede essence, and instead of being fated with a predetermined destiny and an inherent basis for being born, we can simply “make up” the reason for our essence and thrive in whichever direction we choose, in whatever endeavor we decide upon?

Is simply having a “lifetime” not enough?  Must we always have a reason and rationale for our existence?  Or, is it enough to have an ending, like Yasujiro Ozu’s tombstone which simply has the characters of “Mu” — “nothingness”?  Ozu certainly “accomplished” much; as a director, he is recognized for his quiet brilliance and insightful dialogues, as well as depicted scenes of serenity and human conflict.  In the end, it was merely a lifetime, and nothingness followed except in the minds of those whom he left behind.

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 his or her job, the “thing” that often compels the Federal or Postal worker into working beyond what the medical condition allows — i.e., of “working one’s self to death” — is a sense that having a lifetime is not quite enough.

There is the “mission” to accomplish, or the work that needs to be completed, etc.  But when it comes to the critical point of choosing between one’s health and such a perspective of accomplishments, there should be no indecision: Life itself is precious, and one’s health is the foundation for a life.

At that point, filing for FERS Disability Retirement makes sense, and consulting with an Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law should be the next step after realizing that a lifetime is, indeed, sufficient.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire