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

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: Left to our own devices

This is a world where loneliness prevails.  Despite all of the “connectivity” that is bandied about, the fact is that the suffering of human relationships has been on the rise since the industrial revolution, and perhaps even before that.

The proverbial term itself has taken on a double meaning (for those who are comfortable with a more sophisticated linguistic and grammatical ascription, that would be a “double entendre”) – not only in the traditional sense of the phrase as encapsulating the abandonment to make our own way in the world, but in the sense of modern technological overload, of the very pragmatic sense that each of us are surrounded by the electronic contraptions we have embraced in pursuance of connection and social constructs that have resulted in a foreboding sense of growing isolation and angst at the loss of a human touch.

It is that loss of tactile warmth – of holding hands in a movie theater, picking up on the subtleties of facial expressions and looks; of being able to read the soul’s essence through intonations and the mystery of sense impressions.  We are all, in the end, left to our own devices, and more so in this universe of appearances and medium of messaging through words and abbreviations of words where illiteracy parallels the self-delusion of relationships created, maintained and transmitted by light’s illumination.

As Philosophy lost its pinnacle of wonder and incessant questioning when the pragmatic successes of science overshadowed queries perennially posited but never resolved, and as British Empiricism relegated all problems to mere linguistic wastelands where the tinkering of word-orders resolved long-held philosophical conundrums as mere confusion over grammatical misunderstandings and incomprehensible definitional mishaps (as only the British could so arrogantly decide for us how we should speak our language – although, oops!  — the greatest culprit was not English at all but that Vienna-born rabble-rouser, Wittgenstein); so we have now come full circle and find ourselves lost in a paradise of our own seclusion, like the image of the Cave in Plato’s Republic, where we see only shadows, only our own devices, and forever isolated within the illuminated tablets of devices made in foreign parts unknown.

That is the same sense that Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers feel when they are hit with a medical condition that cuts short one’s Federal or Postal career.  Isolation, being left to one’s own devices (in both senses of the phrase – of having no help from one’s own agency and presented with a number of puzzling and confusing forms to fill out), and like the boat up the proverbial river with no paddle, a reduced chance of success with the behemoth of all agencies, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Fortunately, however, there are “repair-shops” and refund policies for devices which don’t quite work; and the first step is to consult with a disability retirement lawyer who specializes in doing FERS & CSRS law.  Left to our own devices, we are bound to come up short with inadequate answers; for, in the end, it is the devices which we use, in the proper and most effective way, that makes the difference in an otherwise mad, mad world.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: The leaked information

Most “secrets” are well-known; it is the combining of a multiplicity of the unknown, which constitutes the importance of leaked information.  Thus, it may be disseminated as to the “what”, but until it can be connected to the “when” or the “who”, the irrelevancy of the data remains in its isolation of significance.  Or, perhaps what will occur is revealed, and by whom, and even the destined time and place; but if caution delays the planned event for another day, hypervigilance can only be maintained for a limited period of time before exhaustion of focus, concentration and attentiveness wanes by profound fatigue.

There is, then, that old hippie dictum:  What if a tree falls in a forest unoccupied; did it make a noise?  Similarly, and in parallel format:  What if information is leaked, but no one took notice; is it relevant?  Does signification of data require acknowledgment?  Why is it that, in certain crime cases, concurrence of telling is important, even if no action is filed?  Why do decades-old cases suddenly come alive merely because impromptu declarations are made, or do underlying motives undermine the validity of such reenactments of crimes committed but neither solved nor investigated?

One often assumes that information begotten through nefarious sources is somehow less reliable; but it is more likened to the man whose leg gets bitten off by a shark while swimming in the midday sun – he hardly becomes comforted by the statistical limitations of an event that has already occurred.  Yet, we constantly obsess over leaked information; data which may be sensitive; constructs that can be pieced together, like a jigsaw puzzle but in the realm of real life.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, there is first the fear that one’s inner intent may be “leaked”; that discussion over the telephone may be overheard by those whose intent and motivation may not be as pristine as the proverbial snowfall the night before; and that, once filed, personal medical information may be disseminated without the privacy protection accorded by law.

In the end, the best that can be done remains twofold:  (1) try to restrict access to a Federal Disability Retirement application by providing fair warning as to the legal consequences if violated, and (2) to realize that the ultimate goal should always be kept in sight – that of getting an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and once that is done, all of the leaked information around the world will become irrelevant, as the focus always was, and should be, to reach that level of rest and restorative peace in order to attend to the real issue at hand:  One’s own medical condition.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: The pleasantry of paper’s caress

Will the electronic tablet ever replace paper’s longstanding sovereignty?  The invention, dissemination and widespread availability of paper was a notable mark in human progression — if only for what it allowed in establishing communication, transfusion of knowledge and conveyance of data.  Like Gutenberg’s movable type printing press, the cotton gin, the Model T Ford and the computer chip of modernity, such inventions became, in retrospect, tumultuous benchmarks of human advancement.  If advertising images reflect a hope of an industry, it is clear that paper’s replacement is a target of that sector.

The image to be replaced — of a carefree summer’s day, lost within the creative imaginings enchanted by a book in hand, is replaced in a meditative surrounding of a monastery of quietude, with a solitary figure with tablet in hand.  Is this a clash of non-conforming imagery, an oxymoron of the tactile senses — or an acceptable intrusion of an outdated perspective now carefully designed to allow for a transcendence beyond sensory inconsistency?

Is it too “weird” to claim that there is a synergy created by the connective tissues, perhaps invisible, in the sensation of bonds reinvigorated when the human organ — the skin which covers one’s hands and fingers — makes contact with the organic product once living in the forest of endless time before becoming transformed and processed into a breathing product of man-made paper?  As opposed to:  holding an electronic device encased in plastic — that dreaded construct of human creation that poisons the environment and resists natural disintegration for eons of man’s extinguished presence on civilization’s watch?

It is precisely that pleasantry of a tactile event — that moment unnoticed when lost in an author’s universe, when the hand feels for the edge of the paper, separates the singular from the aggregation of sequential binding, slides down and in a conjunctive movement of coordinated silence, turns the page.  And from that, idioms of meaningful adages — another page in history turned, entering a new chapter in one’s life, and closing the book on a forgettable chapter in the experiential history of a person; or even of throwing a book at or “booking” someone.  How will that tablet replace such evolutions of linguistic goldmines in the future?

What we unintentionally lose by careless neglect in the rush towards embracing newfangled inventions for monetary gain and lining of pockets in corporate boardrooms, we rarely pause to reflect upon, except in the incremental erasures of history’s richness in human interactions taken for granted but never spoken of.  There is, in rushing towards replacement with thoughtless disregard, a propensity to bury that which is seemingly irrelevant but for the empty chair we suddenly miss, but too late in showing our love and care.  We can regret things that are gone, but remain impotent to despair and unable to replace, once discarded into the ashes, with but a hope for the rise of Phoenix, if only in the timeless mythologies forever extinguished.

For the present, however, paper remains king; and whether by paper or in forms of electronic transmission, Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, must formulate a proper strategy and file the proper forms and “paperwork” in order to become eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  Such a submission must be accomplished within a specified statutory constraint, and the rise of electronic methodologies should not detract from the goal identified:  preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

For, whether by the tactile pleasantry of paper’s caress, or via an electronic transmission, in this particular mode of presentation and submission, it is always the content which matters, and not the means of conveyance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Medical Separation and Retirement under FERS & CSRS: The prefix of undoing

But that life followed grammatical rules; we would all become paradigms of perfection, transform into a species beyond reproach, and maintain a standard of living and measure of conduct unassailable by wandering eyes.  If affixing the prefix of “un” upon any life experience would negate — and not just in terms of virtual reality, but in “real time” reality — the action of which we deplored, as the grammatical ascription automatically accomplishes, then there would never be regrets, no need for hesitation, and always an advancement beyond beastly thoughts of secluded corridors where innocence need not enter and naiveness should not ponder.

It merely requires the intersection of life and language, of gargoyles and grammar, such that we can undo the deplorable, unhinge the unwanted, and untie the endless knots we created.  Linguistic elasticity would no longer be necessary; mistakes in life would be mere wisps of carefree shadows, like crayon colorings straying outside of the lines of convention that is applauded as mere creativity as opposed to lack of talent; and life would be deemed good and beautiful.  But life never follows the rules of grammar; otherwise, politicians would be believed and replays would become unnecessary (there we go again, inserting the prefix of the “un”).

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition necessitates (now it has disappeared) 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, the question is sometimes asked as to whether — if a Federal or Postal applicant attempts a given stage of the process of filing for Federal OPM Disability Retirement benefits on his or her own — a mistake be undone?

The answer is quite simple:  Most mistakes are correctible, but the one thing that an attorney cannot do, is to be a magician and place blinders upon OPM once the proverbial “cat is let out of the bag”.  But that life and grammar become one and the same; then, of course, we would complain that paradise constitutes boredom.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire