Federal Disability Retirement Representation: Comparisons

We all make them.  We may deny doing so, engaging it, silently participating in the informal sport of it all, but we nevertheless join in — that judging eye for the look, the appearance, or maybe sometimes even the substance.  Comparisons are performed each and every day of our lives — by ourselves; by others; publicly or in the insular universe of private thoughts.  Appearance; demeanor, voice inflections; vocabulary used; kindness offered and actions interpreted; there are multiple and almost endless criteria upon which they are made.

Is he boring?  In comparison to what and whom?  If there is no “other” to compare X to, how can one ascertain the value, worth or interest; for it is precisely “against Y” that X can have any comparative value.  Does my dog behave better than other dogs, most dogs, some dogs?  Does my husband act in a kind manner, a polite way, with a gentlemanly pose, in comparison with X, Y or Z?  Does my house look presentable or an eyesore in comparison to others in the neighborhood?  Is the performance of X superior, outstanding, minimal or marginal — and if so, or of fitting any of the categories, in comparison to what or whom?

When a predator looks for a prey, is not the first instinct to observe the comparisons before the chase begins — of vulnerability; of weaknesses displayed or quickness revealed; of exhaustion, a limp, an indicator that it may not outrun as quickly as the others in the sprint for life?  And of human predators who prey upon children, the sick, the elderly — why do we focus so much upon the characteristics of the criminal as opposed to the archetypal manifestations of personalities that reveal the underlying weaknesses often unobserved but clearly and comparatively obvious?  And why do we feel good about ourselves when we compare our misery to another and find ours wanting?

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 position or job, the act of engaging in comparative analysis is an inevitability.

Comparing yourself to who you were a year ago, two years, a month or a day; comparing your physical or cognitive decline and deterioration to the ghost of past remembrances of that figure who was full of vitality and vigor; and comparing what you accomplished 6 months ago, a year, and projecting hence into the future and determining that the chronic medical condition cannot for much longer endure the inconsistency with the positional duties required by your agency.

And don’t think that your agency, the Supervisors and Managers aren’t doing what we all do — making comparisons.  And it is based upon those comparisons that the predator acts and pounces, when the vulnerable least expect it and often feel secure within the insularity of their own ignorance.

That is why preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is important to consider early and systematically, lest the comparison made by others becomes the basis for a PIP or a subsequent termination.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: How words matter

They do, don’t they?  Otherwise, how else to explain the endless plethora in the course of a single day, heard from every corner and source imaginable: The radio; the television; DVD; streaming; other electronic mediums; bystanders; on the telephone; written forms in email, texts, Facebook postings; everywhere, the insular words of a private-public conversation — public because much of it is accessible to everyone, except for those whispered soft nothings in the privacy of bedrooms and lips upon ears, but throughout acted upon “as if” each exchange of communication is between the sender and receiver, the declarative and the reply, the conversationalist and the lecturer; and so the infinite stream of words flow back and forth like the ebb of tides that have washed the shores of this earth from the beginning of time, or so it seems.

But what if actions never follow upon words; do they still matter?  When a person condemns another and shouts out, “He’s just full of it!” — what exactly do we mean?  A person makes a promise; words are spoken; perhaps even a “contract” is written up and entered into.  But then, nothing happens.  No actions are taken; a lawsuit is filed, and more words are entered into the database of the “justice system”; a trial is held, and more words spoken, this time in front of a judge.

At what point did the words originally spoken or written fail to matter, and when did they then again matter?  What is meant by “matter” — is it only in conjunction with actions taken, or do the words themselves, hanging in the suspended universe of the ethereal, have some impact despite no one taking any notice of it?  Is a “vow” or a “promise” something more than mere words?  If a person makes a promise and marries, takes the traditional vows of fidelity and honor, do the words matter, or only by the actions that follow, or both?  And what of the person who says nothing — in past ages, there were men (and women) who had a reputation of “being a man (or woman) of few words” — but always follows through on his or her commitments?  Do the words not spoken matter?

Yes, yes — the linguistic philosopher will observe that the very lack of words was telling all the same, but we are not talking about that — not of silence, but of words spoken, and not of those unspoken.  Thus do we say of the person who keeps his promise — “He is a man (or woman) of his/her word”. But what if he/she breaks every promise spoken, and says upon getting caught, “But I never meant a word of it anyway”?  Does that make a difference?  Or of the boring lecturer who no one listens to, but then when a fire breaks out and a small child yells, “Fire” and everyone listens and exits safely — how did the action following upon the words spoken matter?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition has come to a point where preparing, formulating and filing an effective 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, what must always be kept in mind is that the entire administrative process of the bureaucratic methodology of “Federal Disability Retirement” is based entirely upon “words” — of meeting the legal criteria with words; of describing the nexus between the medical condition and one’s positional duties with words; of making persuasive legal arguments with words.

Words matter by being effective, where actions follow upon the singularly unique encounter between the insular world of subjective words and the objective reality of “others” listening, taking it in, then acting upon them — as in granting an approval for a Federal Disability Retirement application upon a submission of a bunch of effective words that comprise a successful Federal Disability Retirement compilation.  That’s when words matter, and the manner in which words are put together.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer Representation OPM Disability Retirement: Of who we are

Once, it was not a valid question; or, at least not one in which most people were concerned about, unless you were born “out of wedlock” or an orphan shuttered in some institutional hideaway relegated to be humble and taught to forever be thankful for even being alive.  Upon a time now gone, the name by which we were called, the reference to the parental lineage — “Oh, that’s Tom’s youngest” or “She’s Minerva’s middle-‘un” — was enough of an identifier, and we were satisfied with the parochial ways in which we saw ourselves.

Perhaps there were those unique circumstances — of a hushed past where secrets of a shamed love affair produced that “unwanted child” who was brought up by an eccentric aunt who neither cared about public opinion nor made judgments about the grown-up acts and misdeeds now forgotten long ago; but of the rest and the mediocre lot of us, we were just content to remain in quiet anonymity and not invite the ire of societal condemnations.

Now, of course, we do a swab-test, purchase a “kit” and decipher the mysterious genealogy of that twisted image we grasped on to from our school days when science was a muddle and instruction was something to survive — of that “DNA” conundrum that has pervaded the lexicon of our daily lives.  And yet, we still rely upon human frailty — we trust in whatever test results are determined.

If it shows that we are more Irish than of Slavic descent, we abandon our belief in the latter and rush to the nearest pub to declare our ancestry; and if the little molecules within the cellular structure of our essence says that we are distantly related to Abraham Lincoln, why, we puff out our chests and say, “Imagine that!”

All the while, we pay homage without questioning the accuracy of some lab in some corner of the world that says that physical evidence is irrefutable; that statistical analysis cannot be doubted; and that the Age of Science cannot deter the memories handed down from forefathers who created myths and folklores that allowed for the imagination to soar.  Of who we are has become a clinical analysis enslaved by what we are told.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition is beginning to impact, prevent or otherwise impede performing the essential elements of one’s Federal position or Postal Craft, Supervisory role or administrative, physical or cognitive-intensive labor, the concept of who we are is often intimately bundled deep within the psychological recesses of what we do.  But that is a false paradigm.

If you are willing to sacrifice your health upon the altar of what you do, it reflects poorly upon who you are.

In the end, the benefit of a Federal Disability Retirement is not determined by the amount of annuity to be received, but by the priorities placed — your health, which indicates the essence of who you are, as opposed to a DNA analysis of what your cellular structure reveals, and least of all by what you do.  Of who we are is determined more by the wise decisions we make than in the work of the world as determined by others.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement from OPM: Capturing youth

Advertising agencies know well their targeted audience; one need only sit and watch the news, flip through the various channels and recognize that yes, someone has more information about one’s particular household than one would like to share; otherwise, why does the age-group, the likely medical conditions being suffered and the problems statistically encountered seem to fit you?

Then, you search on the computer for a specific product, and suddenly ads appear throughout in the margins of the screen trying to entice you to similar genres of product lines.

Someone is “watching” you; information is being gathered throughout; and all along, it never was the onerous manner in which Orwell’s depiction in his famous novel, 1984 tried to describe and delineate.  No, in that novel, the totalitarian nature of the State imposed and prescribed television screens that had a 2-way capacity to watch and observe, and there were microphones planted in strategically-placed areas to listen in on conversations.  No such events were needed in modernity.

Instead, we go out and voluntarily buy the devices and bring them into our homes without any State or Regime ordering us to do so.  And all in the name of capturing youth.  Youth, by the looks of television and Internet ads, seems to be the prevailing impetus for all that everyone does in life.  Even the old people look young, younger, or seem to only want to be so.  Dating websites are no longer for the young and hopeful; no, they are for the old and retired, and capturing youth is the mainstay of today’s cultural focus.

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the compulsion of striving towards capturing youth; and whether the cosmetic products advertised or the need to “stay young” in order to enjoy life to its “fullest” (whatever that means), capturing youth is the favorite pastime of everyone everywhere nowadays.

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 employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the desire to “capture youth” has a slight twist – for, it is not just the want or motivation to harken back to a “time before” when one was young and carefree; rather, it is a need to capture those days when health was taken for granted and movement free of pain or inner turmoil was the daily routine that needed no greater thought.

Health is a blessing, but we don’t know it until it deteriorates; and medical conditions are a curse, and we just don’t think about it until the time is upon us to consider the future.

Filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, may not ultimately accomplish the goal of capturing youth, and thus may not be of much concern to those “watching you”, but for the unique individual that is the “you” in the privacy of your home and inner reflections, it may be a first step towards securing a future that has become the darker secrets of fear and loathing.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Legal Representation: 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

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Different hats, many roles

We all wear them, don’t we?  Husband, parent, worker, co-worker, supervisor, babysitter, grandparent; or, to remain neutral and non-sexist, wife, mother, worker, co-worker, supervisor, babysitter, grandparent, etc.  There, we have dispensed with any allegation that we have not been fully “balanced” in our perspective, allowing for an all-inclusive approach so that no one feels left out.

Yet, if you closely scrutinize the “list” that was previously posited, you will find the slight nuance of a difference between the two – instead of the neutral “parent”, the word “mother” was unscrupulously inserted, and those who are hypersensitive may want to shout, scream and otherwise pour out a stream of invectives in alleging that such a differentiation in the distinction between “parent” and “mother” reveals an underlying motive, unseen and concealed baseness that betrays a discriminatory or biased intent in the writer of such a list.

Such subtle distinctions are supposed to “uncover” and reveal that which was previously skillfully (or not so skillfully) disguised and only subconsciously manifested in an accidental revelation not previously presumed.  But is this fair?  Does the mere wording based upon previously-accepted normative paradigms necessarily compel a conclusion of subjective intent?  Or, should it instead merely trigger an intermediate step of clarification?

Clarity, of course, is the foundation of communication, and wearing different hats in many roles can often confuse the acuity of defined roles.  For instance, does the Federal or Postal employee who is “disabled”, does he or she have certain “rights” that can be protected?  Does a request for an accommodation have to be submitted before a Federal Disability Retirement application can be filed, or is submission of a requested completion of SF 3112D sufficient to satisfy that legal criteria?  Does the “different hat” that the Federal Disability Retirement applicant play – of a “disabled applicant for OPM purposes – mean that there is now a “different role” that the Agency must play, or that OPM must recognize during the process?

We like to think that while the world around us changes, we remain steadfastly “constant” in who we are and what we stand for; but the reality is that, when a medical condition strikes at the heart of a person’s occupation, preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, requires at the outset when we have to wear different hats, the accompanying different roles will require a reassessment as to the viability of what our next steps will be, especially when preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Youthful mind, decrepit body

The oxymoron of the objective world; yes, it can perhaps be maintained in the virtual reality of cognitive dissonance, but the human body warns and tells all.  The basic problem is that while the “mind” retains an image of frozen time, the body continues upon the progressive course of constancy in deterioration.

We all have an image of ourselves, and no matter how many times a day we look into the mirror, that “image” remains with us, as we are not the one’s watching ourselves as we grow older.  Yet, the body ignores the image we hold, and time, nature and the linear disintegration of organic matter leads to the consequences of a decrepit body.

We are reminded of this when we do silly things – like challenge a high school kid to a game of one-on-one after not having played basketball for a fortnight and a decade; or join in a pick-up game of football or other activity upon a dare, a challenge or an embarrassing invitation in the public’s realm of sight and sound; and though we may try and ignore the body that has advanced by the call of Nature’s echo, the reverberating results scream in the morning’s light as the human body resists the image beheld.

There are, of course, sad exceptions to the “youthful mind” counterpart – of dementia and early onset of cognitive deterioration; but of the decrepit mind, there is no offset, though by cosmetic surgery and other artificial means, we may fool the image reflected in the mirror to somewhat match that which is beheld in our minds.

It is this constant bifurcation and mind-body dissonance that allows for old men to act foolishly and young men to laugh uproariously.  Somehow, the disconnect between the youthful mind and decrepit body has never quite overcome the incommensurate nature of the two; but, then, perhaps that is why Aristotle’s primary focus was upon the rationality of man as the defining essence of his being, knowing that the far greater value resides in the area more populated by angels than by aging bones.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who is getting ready to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the greater travail imposed by the mind-body problem may well come to the forefront in preparing one’s Statement of Disability on SF 3112A.  For, rare is the instance where either and both are not impacted, even if the primary medical condition is psychiatric and not physical, and vice versa, if the focal illness is physical and not psychiatric.

For, the mind can be impacted in other ways beyond the formal diagnosis of a psychiatric condition – by loss of mental acuity, profound fatigue that goes beyond mere daily exhaustion; and how the two are intertwined may be important in later years if the U.S. Office of Personnel Management sends out a Medical Questionnaire and you are recovered physically, but not mentally, or again in reverse order, recovered mentally, but not physically.

In the end, the general rule of “normalcy” of having always a youthful mind while one’s body continues to become decrepit, can be defied only to a limited extend; but for the Federal or Postal employee who is seeking Federal Disability Retirement benefits, the interconnectedness of both is important to consider in preparing, formulating and filing an effective OPM Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire