FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: A Bang or a Whimper

We live in a universe of extremes.  People cannot have “reasonable beliefs” for, you are then deemed lacking, and in such a state, somehow a person without the passionate character who is a “true believer”.

The “middle point” which was espoused by Aristotle and the Stoics — of having the calm demeanor and not reactively excitable; of a reasoned approach to every issue; of maintaining a demeanor of the Zen Monk; this approach is now considered dead and irrelevant.

We must all be extremists.  Whatever cause we take up, whichever banner we decide to flagrantly exhibit (on our cars or with signs and banners ugli-fying our homes and front yards), we must go out with either a bang or a whimper.  If with a whimper, at least we tried.  If with a bang, then we have succeeded.

In modernity, it matters not what the substance of the issue is; only as to whether we are “passionate” in our feelings.  For, after decades of focusing upon the validation of our feelings (as opposed to cultivating the rational faculty of our souls), we have now succeeded in upending the importance of governing the feelings.

Yet, in the field of law, there is still a need for a rational, reasoned approach, and for Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical condition, it is necessary to contact a lawyer who approaches the issue of Federal/Postal Disability Retirement as a matter of legal and medical necessity, and one who sees each case as not a matter of a Bang or a Whimper, but as a legal issue which needs to be approached in a calm, stoic matter — in applying “the Law”.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who will not engage in the Social Media and modern approach of great fanfare, but instead, relies still on the stodgy old way of doing things — of actually speaking with the client, explaining the process, and doing the work himself.  Neither with a Bang or a Whimper, but with a straightforward approach of applying the damn law.

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.

 

Postal & Federal Employee Disability Retirement from the OPM: Loss of Regularity

Regularity is tantamount to reliability; it is the repetitive acts which provide the context for human security in an insecure world replete with dangers, fears (whether founded or unfounded), deterioration, devastation and decline leading to demise.  The sun rises today and we expect it to rise again tomorrow.

We anticipate that the coffee shop down the street, existing for these many years, will be open as it was yesterday and the day before. But in the middle of the night, a fire may have raged, a storm may have blown, a tornado might have scattered; and when suddenly we discover the loss of regularity, an unsettling sense overwhelms us.

What can we depend upon and where can regularity be exposed?  Human frailty is the norm for human beings.

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 further continuing in his or her career of choice, the loss of regularity is often as devastating as the medical condition itself.  The key is to find the next phase of regularity, and to get a FERS Disability Retirement approved in order to attain that goal.

Contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of finding the next phase of security, the next corner of reliability, and to overcome that loss of regularity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Spam

If you remember eating it as a kid, it “dates” you — for, who in this day and age eats something that is singularly unhealthy, contains high levels of fats, calories and sodium, as well as unnamed preservatives?  On the other hand, the younger generation doesn’t blink an eye, and instead sees the word as a forgotten acronym for “junk email”, or otherwise known as “unsolicited commercial email”.

Are the two related?  Can there be a coincidence between a word which has two meanings or more, but contains some similarities and parallels?

Spam as a commercial yummy — oh, but of those memories when the can is first opened, of using that metal “key” where you insert the “thingie” and roll back the metal strip; and upon opening the can, the thick fat that surrounds in globs of hibernating hews of highlights hidden amidst the green shadows of delectable delights.  Spam as unsolicited commercial email — oh, but how that folder fills up so quickly, and yet do we nevertheless obsessively check each one “just in case” it was mistakenly misidentified and sent to the wrong folder?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who cross over generational lines — of whether you remember the word as the delectable blob of pork making its popularity entrance sometime after WWII, or of the “new” generation who makes the connection to unsolicited commercial emails — if a medical condition begins to prevent you from performing one or more of the essential elements of your job, you may want to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Spam is a reality of life; medical conditions, too, occur and become an unavoidable reality; and whether of either reality that uninvitedly intrudes upon your life, it the next step beyond that a person takes which is the important moment of actionable directions.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: The Essence of Relating

How is it that a human being — an entity quite unique among species that cannot relate — can understand, comprehend and even become comfortable with the anomalies of life’s encounters?

Other species seem to weave among and amidst their surroundings with familiar repose; certainly, intelligent dogs recognize a new couch, an unfamiliar visitor or a different dog food introduced; but in the wilds, it is the familiarity of the surroundings that make for comfort in life.

For human beings, how does one relate to the strangeness of an entity — of an alien; of a science fiction novel that introduces a world beyond; of another culture that defies every normative structure of one’s own world?  It is, more often than not, by analogies and metaphors, is it not?

We begin by “discovering” the similarities — that something is “like” the thing we know because they share characteristics x, y or z; and it is through the familiarity of similarities by which we begin to formulate an idea of understanding, then of comprehension, and finally of a feeling of comfort.

Similarly [sic], how does one convey the idea of pain to another person who has had very little experience of it?  What if that “other person” has never experienced pain?

Yes, yes, the rebuttal would be that everyone has experienced it — even if it was a scratch, a dog bite, a paper cut, etc.  But as pain is subjective, there are certainly those who have had limited experiences of a subjective phenomena, and certainly many who have never experienced a spectrum of excruciating, debilitating pain.  Or how about psychiatric conditions — of Major Depression so overwhelming, or Anxiety so paralyzing, or panic attacks so debilitating that the condition itself prevents a person from being able to perform one’s work?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that an application for Federal Disability Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management becomes a necessary next step, it is the essence of relating — of how to formulate ones narrative in the Applicant’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A) — that becomes of foundational importance in the success or failure of the application itself.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law before moving forward; for, the essence of relating requires not only the existence of a medical condition and its impact upon one’s ability or inability to perform one’s job, but more than that, it requires the ability to convey an understanding of the facts, the law and how the two intersect.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The perfect person

By all accounts, he or she doesn’t exist, except perhaps in theoretical constructs of theological paradigms; and of academia, where one may argue some alternate version of Anselm’s argument by positing that, because the concept of perfection could not be thought of without the reality of a Being constituting perfection, ergo a perfect Being – God – must by necessity exist.

Yet, we live “as if” the perfect person exists – either imposing such a standard unknowingly, unwittingly and unwillingly upon our own selves, or by thinking that movie characters actually exist somewhere in the ephemeral world of Hollywood, Instagram and Facebook concoctions that only put forward to the public’s eye the image of perfection.

We overlook the distorted concept of perfection when we say of a movie character, “Oh, he’s not perfect; he drinks too much, cheats on his spouse and is violent.”  Yet, the make-believe character still solves the mystery, is philosophically coherent when drunk, and somehow remains an attractive character despite all such character flaws.  In other words, despite the appearance of flaws, we make gods of characters we create.

It is the same on the Internet – despite the knowledge by all that there does not exist the perfect person, nevertheless, we allow for Facebook postings and Instagram photographs of meals, dogs, kids, families, selves and neighborhoods as the perfect depiction of unblemished lives.  And of ourselves, perhaps the greatest of culprits alive – for perpetuating the mythological depiction by engaging in the flim-flam of projecting the existence of the perfect person.

Yet, what is the alternative?  No one wants to hear the perpetual whining of the constant apologist – that person who points out his own failures and shortcomings at the drop of the proverbial hat; of he who apologizes for the slightest of errors, the scent of a mistake and a hint of failure to reach perfection.  Name a movie character or a movie, excepting a comedy, where the character is merely a bundle of imperfections and unattractive to boot.  Even Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther series, played long ago by Peter Sellers and by others more recently, captured the culprit in the end, despite all of the blunders and pitfalls.

In the end, we all participate in the grand larceny of perpetuating the existence of the perfect person – until we are hit with a medical condition, and the façade then suddenly falls apart.  Yet, everyone else continues in the charade.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who can no longer keep up with the make-believe world of the perfect person because of a medical condition, where the medical condition prevents the appearance of the perfect person to perform all of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, it may be time to admit imperfection by preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted ultimately to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the imperfect Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

For, in the end, it is the perfect person who embraces the imperfection of this world, and that is at least a beginning for the Federal or Postal employee who must continue to face the Federal Agency or the Postal Service in facing the reality of living imperfectly in this all too perfect universe.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Of other’s misery

It may give one a sense of short-term satisfaction; sort of like Chinese carry-out, it satisfies for an hour or so, then seems to lose its efficacy for fulfillment.  Whereas, there are other foods that tend to last for greater time; and so it is with receiving news or information of other’s misery.  It certainly allows for a comparison of sorts; of tilting balances imagined, or even for contrasting accomplishments forsaken, dreams yet unfulfilled or misery unabated.

Of other’s misery – we condescend, conceal our delight and contend that we care and “feel terribly”; in other words, we sit and do nothing about it, even if we were able to.  Oh, we give the proper lip-service, of course: “How terrible”; “What a shame”; “What can one do?”  But all the while, inside, we whisper in soliloquys that harbor those feelings of secretive annoyances that say, “Thank goodness it is the other guy,” and begin to take an inventory of relief and comparative analysis of how best to take advantage of the situation.

Is that too cynical a viewpoint?  Does Machiavelli live within all of us?  Perhaps not to the extent described.  Then, what of other’s misery?  At a minimum, it provides a contrast and places us in a state of reality that says, Maybe our situation is not so bad after all.  Contentment by contrast of balancing the misery of others, however, is no way to live.

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, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the key to preparing a successful and effective Federal Disability Retirement application to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is not by comparing the content of other’s misery, but by a direct creation of a nexus between one’s own medical condition and the essential elements of one’s position description.

Forget the instinctively wrong-headed approach of asking, “Well, does X-medical condition qualify if so-and-so had the same condition and was still able to work?” Or: “There are others more bad off than I am, so…”  So what?  Federal Disability Retirement is a specific legal basis that requires specificity as to individual circumstances.  It is irrelevant as to issues of other’s misery; it is one’s own that one must focus upon.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Law: Argumentation

What makes for a “good” argument?  Is it when voices are raised, or can a quietude of mere whispers that nevertheless persuades become the greater efficacy for effectiveness?  Does it matter “who” the person arguing is, as opposed the position taken, the logical connections made and the avoidance of fallacies left unstated?

Take the following hypothetical: A debate challenge is set between a champion debater, known throughout the country as a persuasive arbiter of words, phrases and posited language games, who encompasses the paradigm of the greater user of fallacies, linguistic tricks and ad hominem twists of convoluted word-play that confuse, obfuscate and confound – and a young teenager who is a son of a minister of whom everyone agrees is an upstanding citizen of the county, whose moral positions on matters reflects a character throughout a lifetime of “living what he preaches” (yes, yes, the cynic would say that that type of person is the one who, in his private life is likely the meanest SOB you ever knew, but let us set aside that ugly fact for the sake of this hypothetical).

The issue to be debated is, “Whether X is morally wrong” – you can fill in the blank represented by the X.  The champion debater stands before the stage and, for the next hour, wows everyone with his command of the logical innuendoes, the implied thrusts of linguistic balm, and rides through the treacherous seas of persuasive intercourse with such convincing force that people in the audience (assuming that there is even an audience for such an event, as this is no longer in some Podunk county in Illinois where the Lincoln-Douglas debates were held throughout multiple congressional districts, and of course, that was, in those days, a form of “entertainment” that no longer attracts) sat with trance-like looks of agreement, somewhat like modern-day zombies who have been brainwashed.

At the end of his discourse, everyone in unison shouted out, “We agree!” – even before the teenager had a chance to make his point and argue his side.  But, fairness being the arbiter of everything in life for modernity, the teenager stood up and was given a chance.  At stake is a 10 million dollar prize.  The nervous young lad steps before the audience and states simply, “Because my daddy says so!” The audience considers, nods in agreement, and makes their decision as to who “won” the debate.

Query: Does it matter who makes the argument, or is it the substance of the words delineated that make for a valid persuasion?  Can an argument about moral behavior be made just as effectively by a “good” person as opposed to a convicted felon?  If a person wants to argue that “stealing is bad”, does it make a difference whether the person giving such a lecture is a policeman in uniform, or a prison inmate spending time for grand larceny?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering 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, always remember that there is a conceptual distinction with a real difference, between “having a medical condition” and “proving that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job”.  To “have a medical condition” is tantamount to the teenager who says that X is wrong “because my daddy says so”.  To prove one’s Federal Disability Retirement application before OPM is akin to the champion debater who must argue, prove and persuade.

Oh, and by the way – as to who “won” the debate in the hypothetical above – well, that is left to the imagination of the reader.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Early Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: The Gatekeeper

Garbage in, garbage out; leave the door wide open, and the flies come in; “we don’t live in a barn”; and other similar quips, quotes and quotidian truths abound to guide us throughout the day.  In Medieval times, the Gatekeeper held a prominent position of authority and safekeeping; trust was of paramount importance, and the potential for bribery to undermine loyalty and fealty to the inhabitants of the Court or Castle meant that treatment of the assigned individual demanded respect as well as adequate renumeration.

With the advent of privacy and the insular family unit, where community was replaced with walls of silence and solitude, the position of the gatekeeper was abandoned and relegated to the relics of antiquity.  Yet, while the public position has become extinct, the conceptual construct remains a necessity of choice.  Few consider the relevance, significance and importance the Gatekeeper, and so we allow for technology, any and all forms of television shows, images, opinions unfettered and logical (and illogical) consignments to enter and exit, leaving aside the mere tincture of bad taste to flow freely through our doors.

Who is the Gatekeeper in this age of unconfined information, where Orwell’s fears have been confirmed, and even more so; and where judgement, good taste and sheer hypocrisy of life matters not because “anything goes” and the only prohibition is to express one’s self honestly, lest the psyche and ego of one’s neighbor be offended and the thought police from the campus next door comes knocking on the proverbial wall in the middle of the night?  For, when the Gatekeeper was fired those many eons ago, we forgot that a locked door relied merely upon the person entering or exiting, and responsibility shared is no more than perils disbursed amongst the many, including those who fear not or carelessly sputter through life’s travails.

Now, for the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker who must consider preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, what relevance does the concept of a Medieval Gatekeeper have in this day of modernity?  Much.  And beyond, of greater relevance than you might think.  Garbage in, garbage out.

Leave the door wide open, and a denial might be guaranteed by OPM.  “We don’t live in a vacuum.”  And another:  Since the applicant in a Federal Disability Retirement claim has the burden of proof, such that a “preponderance of the evidence” standard must be met, who will be the determinant of what facts, relevant information and significant documentation is to be forwarded to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management?

In the end, the applicant, or his/her attorney of choice, is/are the Gatekeepers of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with OPM, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset; and like the Medieval Gatekeeper of yore, it is well to treat that position with respect, lest any undermined fealty results in the doors left wide and open for the haunting ghosts of yesteryear to enter and defile.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Federal Disability Retirement from the Office of Personnel Management: The Insular Universe

The self-containment of society has reached a point of no return; when the universe of virtual reality becomes the focus of dominant conversation, where movies depicting historical events replace the factual narrative of serious discourse; of twitter terminals constituting serious haikus of accepted profundities; the age of human innovation and creative destiny has indeed come to an end.

So where does empathy fit into the maze of humanity?  For a bureaucracy, processing paperwork and finishing tasks satisfies the requirement of emotional output designated for responsiveness.

For the individual awaiting a decision on one’s application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the dealings with “life issues” are comprised of:  first and foremost, attending to the medical condition; second or third, the increasing vitriol of the Federal agency, its agents and assigns, or the U.S. Postal Service through its supervisors, managers and other thoughtless coworkers who engage in various forms of harassment and pushing of pressure points; and further down the sequential order of priorities, waiting upon the administrative process of filing for, and anticipating, a decision from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

In a universe where reality and virtual reality no longer have a distinctive bifurcation of differentiating margins, the qualitative conditioning of terminating that video drone is of no greater consequence than denying an application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

The key, then, is how best to awaken the sleepy eyes of the Administrative Specialist at OPM?  In real life, medical conditions have a traumatic impact upon life’s otherwise uneventful discourses.

How to convey that narrative to a bureaucracy and administrative process is the question of paramount importance.  How to shake up the slumbering mind overtaken with years of callous disregard, and pull from the insular universe of self-containment the reality of one’s condition, depends upon the medical documentation, the statement of disability, and the legal argumentation propounded in a compendium of discourse which will touch the soul.  That is the ultimate art of legal training.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Attorney: Stress in the Federal Workplace

Stress is a natural and inherent part of everyday and ordinary life.

For the Federal and Postal employee who is considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, one needs to always consider its form, content, extent and significance of inclusion in a Federal Disability Retirement application.

As a primary diagnosis, such an inclusion can be considered as merely “situational“, precisely because stress is a factor seen in workplace contexts across the board. As a secondary manifestation of another primary diagnoses, the danger of having the condition relegated to being a situational condition immediately disappears.

Whether the conceptual construct is used as a noun or as a working verb may appear to be merely a linguistically elastic play — a Wittgensteinian language game of sorts — but it is precisely what must be engaged in for a successful preparation and formulation of a Federal Disability Retirement application.

For, in the end, a Federal Disability Retirement application is a paper presentation to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, encompassing a wide spectrum of descriptions, arguments and factual/legal analysis; and such is the nature of a language game, where the conversion of nouns into working verbs may be the difference between success or failure in a Federal OPM Disability Retirement claim.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire