OPM Disability Retirement Law: Life Without

Some learn early on to live with the “without”; others, perhaps those few who were born with that metaphorical “silver spoon” in one’s mouth, never learn the lesson; and whether living life without “things”, or loving parents, or a dog, or some such other tangible or intangible whatever is a valid question.

Is it better to have possessed X, then lost it, in order to appreciate X?  Or, if you never knew of life with-X, is life without it something you never missed, anyway?  Yet, we can certainly extrapolate from watching others “with” X, and thus experience various emotions, whether of jealousies, regret, self-pity or angered arrogance.

Life without can form better character, or so they say.  Then, perhaps, life with-X and the subsequent loss of X may also form greater character.  It all often depends upon the malleability of the individual, and not whether or not a person grew up with or without.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition necessitates preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, two issues of life without will be of immediate concern: Life without the same career you once had; and more importantly, life without the health you once enjoyed.

As for the latter, that is part of the point of filing for Federal Disability Retirement — so that you can focus more of your attention upon regaining that which you once had, and which you have partially lost.  As to the former — there is actually life beyond the Federal Government or the Postal service, and you may find that the future is yet bright, and life without your Federal or Postal job is not as important as life without health.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

FERS Disability Retirement Help: A Worthy Life

Should such a question, or answer, even be entertained?  Or, should one always revert to the normative ethos — albeit, safe and uncontroversial — that by definition, any and all lives constitute a worthy life, merely because life itself is precious and therefore undeniably and incontrovertibly worthwhile?

Yet, surely we engage in such debates, if not directly, then circuitously and sometimes by engaging in linguistic euphemisms which betray our most sacred belief systems.

Are proponents of the death penalty those who have answered the question, already?  For, have you not made a judgment of “unworthiness” if you believe that the death penalty is an acceptable penalty?  Or, of a lesser offense — say, a homeless person who begs for food; should they all be shuttered in some part of the world where we don’t have to deal with them?

How do we define “worth”?  Is it by economic success, or are there other factors which determine fulfillment of a definition rarely complete and barely understood?

Is “worth” tantamount to “indispensable”?  If that is the standard, then none of us would qualify; for, looking back into the history of mankind, is there anyone from yesterday whom we consider indispensable today?  They are all deep in the ground where moss, grass and ivy have overgrown the cemeteries where once the worth was thought to be indispensable, but now are merely forgotten remnants of unrepentant memories.  Here is a thought: At a minimum, a worthy life is when a person provides a mangy dog a life of comfort and happiness.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service 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 Federal or Postal job, the question of a worthy life often begins to creep in, where the Federal agency or Postal facility is doing everything to question your worth with the Federal Agency or the Postal Service.

Don’t buy into that line of thinking.

You know your own worth; don’t begin to doubt it.  Instead, contact a disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and thus begin the process of ascertaining the unquestionable worthiness of a life which has many miles to go, if merely to have the opportunity to give a mangy dog a life of comfort and joy.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

FERS Medical Retirement from OPM: The Technical Application

In every system, specialty, sub-specialty, etc., there is a technical application and usage of a term, concept, acronym, etc.  Wittgenstein, the Austrian Philosopher and the author of “Philosophical Investigations” (as well as Tractatus Philosophicus and other works), discusses the concept of “Language Games” involving such unique and technical applications of word usage within different contexts and circumstances.

Thus, there are “computer software language games”, or engineering language games — where specific words have meanings quite narrowly defined, and which often excludes the general population’s understanding unless you become a “member” of that particular group, society, etc.

In Federal Disability Retirement Law, there are numerous technical applications within the language game of “Federal Disability Retirement under FERS” — and one of them is the usage and application of the term, “Accommodations”.  The term itself is widely and loosely used — as in referring to various work-related adjustments and changes.

Thus, a Federal Agency or the Postal Service might, for example, refer to a light duty assignment as an “accommodation” provided, when in fact — in the technical, legal sense — it is not at all an accommodation under Federal Disability Retirement Law.

The problem with a technical application, usage and misapprehension / misunderstanding terms and concepts used in a “general sense” as opposed to the “technical sense”, is that such failure of comprehending the precise meaning of a term can result in failing to apply and obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.

Contact a lawyer who understands the technical application of all terms under Federal Disability Retirement Law, and don’t let the language game of Federal Disability Retirement Law mislead you into a failure of filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Troubled Life

Is it a redundancy and a tautology to put the two words together?  For, one may assume that every life is “troubled”, and everything in the universe that is troubled involves a “life”.  So, if one concept necessarily entails another, why do we even have to bother to explicitly point out the co-dependent concept?  Thus would one say if you hear the word, “Life”.  Oh, then it must be troubled.  Or, if you heard someone mention that there was “trouble” in such and such a place, you would merely add, “Oh, yes, there must be a live person there, then.”

Of course, one could argue that the reason why we must clarify one concept with another is because (A) A different and separate concept can also be attached to the other word and (B) It is not necessarily so that an if-then conditional exists — meaning thereby that there are, arguably, “untroubled” lives as well, as least for brief moments in the life of an individual.  As one pastor was heard to say long ago, however: “Where there are people, there are problems.”  True enough.

To live a life for any length of time is by necessity to encounter problems and troubles; for, that is the nature of human existence.

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 Federal or Postal job, “trouble” becomes exponentially pronounced because of the impact upon one’s life that a medical condition necessarily brings.

Filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, of course, can often mitigate the trouble and help one live a life that is less troubled, by allowing the Federal or Postal employee to focus more upon one’s health and less upon the adversarial nature and friction which arises from one’s inability to perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job.

Consult with a Federal Disability Retirement Attorney to discuss the possibility of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, and see whether or not “trouble” does not necessarily have to entail “life”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: Contested lives

We hear of such terms in specific linguistic contexts; of a “contested” divorce, or that a variable version of a testimony or evidence has been “contested”; or that the results of a certain race or game has been contested.  If you drop the affix placed after the stem of the word (i.e., the suffix or the “ed”), and emphasize the first syllable, it becomes a noun; whereas, if you engage in the identical mental exercise but intone upon the second syllable, it becomes a verb.

As a noun, it is normally relegated to a challenging game, a sport or perhaps some duel; when applied with the second word in the title above, it takes on a wider meaning that encompasses an endless spectrum and, unless further delineated, undefined in a disturbing way.  If denoted in a general sense, as in the statement, “All lives are contested,” the generic meaning loses its force; for, it is a truism which is rather inane in that, yes, all lives have facets of contested issues, and in that sense, it becomes a “meaningless” statement of trope and triviality.

Yet, that truism is something which we all experience.  When one hears the complaint, “Life is a series of conflicts and is a contest of endurance,” we nod our heads and know exactly what that means.  We all recognize that our lives encompass a consistent effort to contest (emphasis on second syllable), and that the contest of life is to endure (emphasis on the first syllable); and we must persevere to contest it (again, emphasis on the second syllable).

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, the truism that there are contested lives is a simple fact.  It is not just a matter of going to work – rather, it is going to work with a medical condition.  It is not just going to work and doing one’s job – it is, moreover, doing that and contending with a medical condition, as well as the growing harassment from coworkers, supervisors, and the Agency and Postal Service as a whole.

Preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be ultimately submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is also a matter of a contested life – for the bureaucratic process with OPM is an embattlement of sorts, and it only reinforces that inane, trite and trivial aspect of the statement, “We all live contested lives.”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: Scoffing paradigms

Of course, such a title can have a double entendre or duality of meanings – that, in the first instance, the accent is upon the word “scoffing” with a lowering of one’s voice upon “paradigms”, and that would mean: One turns up one’s nose at the very idea of paradigms. Or, alternatively, if both words are of equally monotonous tonal undulations, then it could mean that the paradigm itself is one which scoffs at other paradigms, differing principles or contrary perspectives.

As to the first: There are those in life who declare that paradigms are unnecessary, and one needs to simply live life, take things as they come and forget about being able to comprehend “first principles” or other such nonsense. Indeed, that is the bestial side of humanity; animals and all other species live like that, and as the evolutionary perspective has won out and we are left with nothing but the biological counterview of life, so why not us as well in consonance with the rest of the universe?

The second meaning would presume the opposite: for, in order for a superiority of belief-systems beyond modernity’s feeble attempt at generalized equivalence of all such systems, there needs be certain paradigms that are objectively prioritized in significance, importance and relevance of application. In either meanings, while the emphasis upon the direction of the scoffer may differ, the central concept of “paradigms” remains throughout and consistently becomes elevated and magnified as the primary root cause.

Modernity has a dual problem (and many more, besides): On the one hand, nobody any longer believes in grand systems of philosophical import; thus, the Hegels, Kants and Heideggers of yesteryear will not become reincarnated in current or future times, unless there is a wholesale exchange of mindsets. On the other hand, we still cling to a tribal mentality – of wanting and needing to belong to a group that espouses illogical biases and discriminatory tendencies, if only to have some semblance of an identity unique from others; and so we embrace, by unconscious fiat or otherwise estranged ignorance, paradigms that we neither understand nor take the time to comprehend, but instead join in and defend by means of keeping company with other such ignoramuses.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who begin the process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, what becomes quickly evident during the process is that the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Facility will suddenly become encamped and invested in one paradigm, and you in an altogether different paradigm, and then the scoffing begins.

The Federal Disability Retirement applicant (you) are no longer amongst the “for the mission of the agency” paradigm, and you end up being a member of that “other” paradigm whether you like it, choose to, or not. Thus do you participate in the vicious cycle of scoffing paradigms, in either sense of the terms, without even knowing it. Go figure.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Minding the ‘happiness principle’

Is there such a thing?  Certainly, enough authors, gurus and faith-healers have claimed it, packaged it and sold it as a commodity to be prepared, marketed and purchased.  Somehow, we are all gullible enough to believe in it:  Just as sorcerers of old possessed powers beyond human comprehension, so we hold on to the hope that such secrets of soothsayers mixing the concoction in a cauldron of expectations may boil over with fumes and aromas we can smell into oblivion.

That secret incantation; those mysterious sequence of codes (yes, which is why the Da Vinci Code was so popular – until it was made into a movie and the audience realized the farcical nature when bad literature is transformed into an ever worse media script); or perhaps it is a deal of Faustian proportions – of one’s soul for the hidden principle, the fountain of youth, the corridor down timeless ecstasy; instead, of course, in this mass-marketing world of consumer gullibility, we cling to the anticipation – despite all historical evidence to the contrary – that there exists a fortune-teller’s abracadabra comprising a happiness principle.

Principles are the foundational guidance for understanding the causal connections of events that occur in the objective world; first principles, as Aristotle liked to point out, are important in their revelatory powers to comprehend the operational mechanisms of this world of Being.  If you don’t know first principles, or the paradigmatic principles that operate behind the scenes – much like the Wizard behind the curtain —  then you will always only know that it happens, not why it does so.

And so we go through life, walking and wandering the streets, seeing others smiling, laughing and seeming to enjoy life, while we stew in the solitude of our private misery, perhaps outwardly attempting to feign such emotional brightness while inwardly decaying with each day’s tumult of angst and anxiety.

In minding the existence of the ‘happiness principle’, we are everyday falling into the statistical trap of that famous quip attributed to the 19th century Showman, P.T. Barnum, that there’s “a sucker born every minute.”  Even if everyday empirical evidence refutes the existential reality of such a principle, we nevertheless hope against fading hope for such a white knight in shining armor – that armor of protective fallacies based upon a nonexistent principle wrapped in the cloaking of hopes unearned and never to be attained.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are down in the dumps because of a medical condition, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the reality that one’s career may be cut short and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits may be a necessity, must fight against the false hope that a Federal Disability Retirement annuity is the “be-all” and “end-all” of life’s miseries.

Medical conditions may continue to remain chronic; there will likely remain many challenges in the future; but the point of filing for Federal Disability Retirement is to allow for one to attain a plateau of hopefulness where one can make one’s health and well-being a priority, without necessarily minding the ‘happiness principle’ or believing in P.T. Barnum’s secret to success.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Government Employment: Parting grace in silence

Does grace extend even when the intended recipient is unaware of its attachment?  Can the undeclared withdrawal of revenge justified have its own inherent rewards, without the unsolicited admission left silent by anonymity undaunted?  If given the choice between leaving the scene where injustice prevailed and dominated – of wreaking revenge or parting grace in silence – which would we choose?

Of course, there is a greater contextual awakening to be narrated before such an event would occur – of quietly enduring the daily harassment, the constant criticism and demeaning remarks; of refuting, rebutting and reacting, as against an agency that initiates adverse actions one after another in sequential persistence of unfettered meanness.

From that erupts the natural tendency in thinking:  “They can’t get away with this”; or, “If I have to spend my last dime, I am going to get even with them.”  Yet, is the cost of revenge worth the time, effort and expenditures depleted?  What does it mean to attain “justice” in an unjust world?  If a verdict is rendered or a settlement reached, what is the barometer by which one has regained one’s reputation, reestablished that one was ‘right’ or recuperated the toil of anguish and angst expended?

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is not a surrender of one’s soul to an agency that has not, will not or otherwise cannot accommodate one’s medical conditions.  Rather, it is an admission that there exists an incommensurability between the particular position occupied and the medical conditions suffered.

That is the point made in the case of Henderson v. OPM, in which the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board reiterated the alternative but equally valid approach in proving a Federal Disability Retirement case by a preponderance of the evidence:  a 1-to-1 ratio between a medical condition and an essential element of one’s Federal or Postal position is not the only methodology in establish a medical condition such that the Federal or Postal employee becomes eligible and entitled to Federal Disability Retirement benefits, but additionally, a showing that there is an incompatibility generally between the position occupied and the medical conditions suffered is also a basis for granting a Federal Disability Retirement benefit.

Whatever workplace issues have been a part of the content and context of a Federal or Postal employee needing to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, once that decision is made to prepare, formulate and file for Federal Disability Retirement, one might consider this:  The past has passed; the present must be endured while waiting upon a decision by OPM; the future is based upon the decision of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; and in the meantime, where do you want to expend your energies?  You may want to consider parting grace in silence, instead of spinning the proverbial wheels heaping reactive acts of futile counterpunches upon those who know not the terms of justice.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire