Federal Employee Disability Pension: Avoiding the Rabbit Hole

The figurative “rabbit hole” originates from the famous Carroll classic, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.  As applied, it refers to the labyrinthine distractions which we pursue in acts of futility — of irrelevancies and asides that detract from the importance of a focused and purposeful endeavor.

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, avoiding the proverbial “rabbit hole” is important both in terms of focus, as well as relevancy of application.

Avoid the obvious rabbit holes — Federal Disability Retirement is not the time to complain incessantly about how badly you have been treated by your agency; it is not the moment for revenge; it is not the forum for blasting your supervisor and how mean he or she has been, etc.  The focus is the rabbit, and not the rabbit hole.

Contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and make sure that your application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits leads to an approval — meaning, the prize of the rabbit, and not the empty rabbit hole.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee’s Medical Retirement: A Perspective on Truth

The traditional philosophical arguments surrounding the nature of Truth, the “battle” between “Absolute Truth” and “Pure Relativism”, etc., are too often simplified and reduced to sloganeering and shouting matches which end up being nothing more than accusations as to whether one believes in a Higher Order of Being — or not.  Yet, it is often a perspective upon appearances which determines the “truth” of a statement.

Plato pointed this out in reference to the three towers in the distance; if seen from one direction, they appear to be only one; if seen from another, they constitute 3 distinct objects.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in denying a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, takes a similar perspective on truth.  They will take each medical condition cited, isolate each and minimize the impact of the separated medical conditions upon one’s ability or inability to perform the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position, and by approaching the “truth” this way, can purport to make your case appear “as if” you never had any case at all.

Now, some might critically argue that such an approach is “disingenuous” (i.e., somewhat akin to the “absolutist” argument), while others merely view this as “clever” (i.e., akin to the “relativists”).  The point of OPM’s approach is to make you believe that you never had a chance to begin with, and to have you go away without filing for Reconsideration, thus reducing their caseload by a numerical insignificance until multiplied by an exponential factor of greater percentages.

The way to counter OPM’s argument?  To identify their approach and counter it with a different, more powerful perspective on truth — by further medical documentation and more powerful legal argumentation which makes OPM’s argument impotent and irrelevant.

For, in the end, a perspective on truth must be countered by proposing an alternative perspective on truth — of showing that the three-towers-in-one is a mere illusion and a trick of the eye.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement under FERS: The Wishes We Wish

People wish all the time.  Whether implicitly through fantasy or daydreaming, or explicitly by prefacing the thought with, “I wish that…” — the wishes we wish are often more revealing than the act of wishing itself.

Are humans the only species which projects upon things not possessed?  Do other species wish for things, circumstances, events and relationships that are not?  Does it border upon insanity to wish for things that are clearly outside of the realm of probabilities, or is it a healthy engagement of one’s time to daydream, wish, imagine and hope for?

Is there a distinction with a difference between a wish and a hope, a fantasy and a wandering daydream, or between a concocted reality and the miserable circumstances within which one exists?  If the difference is between containing one’s wishes within the privacy of one’s mind — on the one hand — and “acting as if” the wish itself is reality, on the other, then the boundary between sanity and its opposite is thin indeed.

Here’s something that tells us much about ourselves: Do we wish for things for ourselves, or for others?  Do we wish for extravagances — like a yacht, a vacation or a revitalization of a lost relationship — or something more mundane, like good health?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, the wishes we wish may be common, understandable and mundane — of getting one’s health back.  And while Federal Disability Retirement may not result in better health, it allows for a Federal or Postal employee to extricate one’s self from a workplace situation that only increases the stresses upon one’s health because of the constant worry about being unable to perform the work assigned, and to instead focus upon one’s health and well-being.

In the end, the wishes we wish need to conform to the reality we find ourselves in, and for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to file for Federal Employee Disability Retirement, you should contact a Federal Disability Lawyer who specializes in FERS Disability Retirement Law and allow for some wishes to turn into a reality.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Employee Disability Retirement: A Sense of Worth

Wittgenstein argued that a language which is kept private — i.e., known only to one person and not shared with anyone else — is conceptually impossible.  Language by definition is a vehicle by which ideas, concepts, declarations and commands are conveyed, and to remain as an eternal soliloquy would undermine the very essence of what language is meant to be.

Similarly, does the concept of “worth” make any sense within a vacuum?  Can an individual stranded on an island have any capacity to understand such a concept — of a “sense of worth”?  As an ancillary issue, what is meant by “a sense of”, as opposed to X or Y having “worth” without the prefatory addendum of “a sense of”?  If a person were to say, “I have worth” — is it different from declaring, “I have a sense of worth?”  Or, is the attribution appropriate when a distinction is made between living entities as opposed to inanimate objects?

For example, if a person points to another person’s wrist and says, “I have a sense of worth about that watch you are wearing,” would such a statement seem odd?  Is “sense of “ attributable to a fuzziness when it comes to the object/subject of such attribution?

Ultimately, whether of worth or sense of worth, what becomes clear is that the conclusion of “worth” is derived from the interaction with others within a given community.  Neither “worth” nor “sense of worth” is a comprehensible concept in a vacuum, in isolation, or as a soliloquy.  For, in the end, both language and a sense of worth are derived not from an egoistical encounter, but by attributions from others.

For Federal and Postal employees whose sense of worth has diminished because of the silence of agencies and postal facilities as to one’s contributions to the workplace, it may be time to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS.  Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and consider regaining your sense of worth by moving beyond the Federal Agency or the Postal Service that no longer sees your sense of worth.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: The Percentage Game

We all play it; whether in calculating the chances of success (most of us are not knowledgeable enough to be statisticians, not having paid close enough attention in high school or college to that mathematics course regarding the numerical analysis of a numbers-based algorithm), or in merely keeping an eye on interest rates in the housing market, or perhaps taking note of how likely it is to be attacked by a shark before we step into the polluted waters of the Atlantic.

OPM certainly plays the game — one needs only to look at a Denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to realize that, the manner in which the Denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application is written, there will be a certain percentage of people who will read it and say, “Gee, I never stood a chance.  I might as well not even go any further.”

The Denials are often written in unequivocal terms, stating with a tone of certainty that there was never any basis for filing, and that any further efforts would be fruitless and futile.  And from that language of certainty, a certain percentage of Federal Disability Retirement applicants will simply give up and walk away.  That is what the percentage game is based upon.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have received a Denial from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is wise to consult with an experienced attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law to perform an objective-based evaluation of a Federal Disability Retirement claim.  Better, yet, consult with such an attorney even before you begin the process, to ensure the best chances in this “percentage game” which OPM plays.

Sincerely,

Robert R.McGill, Esquire