OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: The Advocate

It is the ability to see things that you may not; of knowing the laws that apply, the arguments which will work, the evidence to be submitted; these, and many more, make “the advocate” worth the price to be paid.  Certainly, expenses have to be considered, but as the old adage goes, “You get what you pay for”, and you need to be careful in considering what is included.

When you call the office which you are considering as your “advocate”, does someone call you back fairly soon after leaving a voicemail?  Do you get to speak to an actual lawyer — the one who should be working on your case, or do you — instead — only speak to a paralegal or someone who claims the title of, “Disability Specialist”?

What, in fact, is a “Disability Specialist”?  If not a lawyer, then no amount of “specialty” in the field makes a bit of difference.  Who will be working on your case?  Will your case be sloughed off to some clerk or “legal specialist”, or will you actually be getting what you think you are paying for — an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from OPM, contact Robert R. McGill, Attorney at Law, and be assured that he himself, and not someone else, will be working on your case.  He will, indeed, be “The Advocate” who will fight on your behalf.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Early Medical Retirement under FERS: Acceptability

At what point does it NOT become so?  Whether in marriage; in a job or career (is there such a distinction, these days?); or of life in general.  Is it the point where stress meets up with one’s desire and hope for a pictured future?  Does acceptability vary — is it different depending upon social class, background, level of education or even of cultural heritage?  Or, as with so many things — is knowledge or ignorance (the corollary between the two) what determines acceptability?

In other words, if a person has only known a certain X-standard of living, and has never been exposed to Y-standard of conditions, is it the lack of knowledge which accounts for acceptability of living conditions, or can we be content despite possessing such knowledge?

Unrest in modernity around the universe is often attributed by sociologists as indicated by the level of the shrinking globe — that, through the Internet, people everywhere are aware of everything, including the unacceptability of their own circumstances, and thus resulting in a universal sense of unease and unrest.

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 positional duties, the level of acceptability is often when the juncture between pain and illness, and the tolerance for such where “living life” is barely bearable, meet and collide.

Consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, and consult with an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement, less acceptability turns into a morose sense of despair where even the weekends are barely tolerable.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement under FERS: The Wishes We Wish

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Employee Disability Retirement: A Sense of Worth

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement for Federal Employees: Maintaining the Fakery

Is it like a bakery, or perhaps some other manufacturing facility where things are made?  In some sense, perhaps; but it is not the “making” of it, but of maintaining it.

To a great extent, we all have a feeling of fakery — that we are not as competent as others believe us to be; that our outer appearance of confidence, boldness, knowledge and positive attitude do not reflect our inner sense of insecurity, tentativeness and lack of certainty.  Are there people in this world where the “inner” self actually reflects the “outer”?  Or, are we all beset with being a quivering ball of showmanship — like the famous actor who falls apart before every show but somehow regains his composure and acts like a star every time?

Maintaining the fakery is what is required daily; some are better at it than others; still other thrive by it; and the few detritus of human beings who cannot abide in it, fall apart and admit to being unable to maintain it any longer.

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, maintaining the fakery is an essential part of the medical condition itself: Of trying to keep up one’s performance level; trying to hide the symptoms of the medical condition; trying to maintain the level of attendance and hide the debilitating effects of the medical condition itself, etc.

But fakery can only deceive for a limited amount of time; and when the truth begins to seep out, it may be time to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest maintaining the fakery leads to the greater truth about yourself, that in the meantime your health is what is being sacrificed upon the altar of truth.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Benefits: Philosophy of Life

Is it necessary to have one?  Does one ever begin this process of organic expansion with a conceptual paradigm which encapsulated the activities, movements, thought-processes and decision-making judgments that, in their aggregate, define a person’s “Philosophy of Life”?  And if we all have one, when did we subscribe to it, create it or “own” it?  Or is it all just some pithy mandate which we follow — you know, some line here or there that we picked up, either from a book, a movie, some T.V. serial, or even from some bartender who likes to mete out wisps of wisdom to those half drunk?

“Joe’s philosophy of life is to never trust anyone.”  Or: “Kim — she just believes that you should finish whatever you began.”

Of course, if you went to college and took that “Introductory Philosophy” course, you received a Reader’s Digest version of various philosophers, and perhaps came upon Seneca, the Roman Stoic, whose attempt to bifurcate the physical world from one’s inner soul has become popularized in modernity; and perhaps there are those who have grasped upon a coherent or systematic philosophical paradigm such that one actually possesses a “philosophy of life” —but few of us are organized enough to have that and, even if we did, how many of us actually follow our own philosophy of life?

Most of us just struggle through and meander, responding from one mini-crisis of life’s travails to the next.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where that medical condition begins to prevent one’s ability and capacity to perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal job, it is not a “philosophy of life” that will help you survive the bureaucratic process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, but rather, correct knowledge, helpful information and a plan of attack.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law before initiating the process.  And, after obtaining your FERS Disability Retirement benefits, perhaps that will be the time to begin to formulate your Philosophy of Life — that is, the life beyond Federal employment.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: A Lifetime

Isn’t that enough?  Shouldn’t it be?  Or, do we feel obligated to append a dependent clause, as in, “A lifetime of achievements,” “…of having accomplished X, Y and Z”, or even: “A Lifetime devoted to…”.  Must there always be the subsequent appendage, or isn’t living a lifetime enough in and of itself?

Was Aristotle right in depicting human beings (and everything else in the universe) as possessing a purposive reason for existence; or, as the French Existentialist had declared, does existence precede essence, and instead of being fated with a predetermined destiny and an inherent basis for being born, we can simply “make up” the reason for our essence and thrive in whichever direction we choose, in whatever endeavor we decide upon?

Is simply having a “lifetime” not enough?  Must we always have a reason and rationale for our existence?  Or, is it enough to have an ending, like Yasujiro Ozu’s tombstone which simply has the characters of “Mu” — “nothingness”?  Ozu certainly “accomplished” much; as a director, he is recognized for his quiet brilliance and insightful dialogues, as well as depicted scenes of serenity and human conflict.  In the end, it was merely a lifetime, and nothingness followed except in the minds of those whom he left behind.

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 his or her job, the “thing” that often compels the Federal or Postal worker into working beyond what the medical condition allows — i.e., of “working one’s self to death” — is a sense that having a lifetime is not quite enough.

There is the “mission” to accomplish, or the work that needs to be completed, etc.  But when it comes to the critical point of choosing between one’s health and such a perspective of accomplishments, there should be no indecision: Life itself is precious, and one’s health is the foundation for a life.

At that point, filing for FERS Disability Retirement makes sense, and consulting with an Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law should be the next step after realizing that a lifetime is, indeed, sufficient.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire