Federal Disability Retirement Process under FERS: Silent Despair

Despair is bad enough; silent despair, her cousin to avoid.

Sometimes, sharing the trouble, “talking it out” with someone else, complaining to a spouse or friend, or even just venting — helps to expiate the cumulative stresses which grow relentlessly within the body and mind of the individual.  Perhaps that is what social media is ultimately all about — an outlet for expression, however imperfect, which satisfies a very basic human need.  For, silent despair is that desolation of one’s spirit which has no avenue leading to human contact, and that is the worst type of despair.

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, talk to a Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer about whether or not Federal Disability Retirement benefits is an avenue for your despair.

Silent despair never leads to a solution; speaking with an expert in the field of Federal Disability Retirement Law, at the very least, allows for you to consider options which you may not have previously considered.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Medical Retirement: Muddling Through

That is how most of us cope with the complexities of life.  It has been said that competence in anything doesn’t actually take fruition until a person has been doing it for at least 2 decades or more.  In the meantime, “muddling through” is how most of us spend the day; “acting as though”, practicing “as if”, winging it, pretending to be so, trying to appear as such and such, etc.

Yes, apprenticeship is an old-fashioned idea which no longer applies — at least in a formal manner.  Yet, we all continue to remain in the role of an apprentice, muddling through life, through our jobs and through the course of our lifetimes, until one day we realize that we have reached a point of competence where things come second nature, where insight is more often the rule than the exception, and where success follows upon success more often than not.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition and where the medical condition impacts the Federal or Postal employee’s ability and capacity to remain competent in one’s job and position, medical disability retirement may be the best way to go out.  We all muddle through, but when you have a medical condition that impacts your ability to get through the day, even “muddling through” may sap your energy so severely that you can no longer function.

If this describes you, consult with an attorney who specializes in the area of Federal Disability Retirement, and consider preparing an effective FERS Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement: Force of laughter

Is language necessary for laughter to follow?  If so, what accounts for the slapstick comedy that erupts with uproarious belly-shaking guffaws that reverberate throughout?  What is the fine line between laughter and sorrow — of the man who slips and upends upon a slippery banana left unnoticed on the sidewalk, to realizing that the injuries are serious enough to land him in the emergency room; what divides the chasm between comedy and tragedy?  And of the force of laughter — can it be forced and, if so, does the force of laughter have the same effect as laughter naturally erupting?

Say you live in an Orwellian state — a totalitarian regime somewhat like the one prevailing in North Korea — and you stand beside “The Great One” who cracks a joke.  You do not find it funny, and nor does anyone else; but you laugh, anyway, because you are expected to laugh on pain of death.  Is there a difference between that laughter and the one that you cannot help because the punch-line is so deliciously delivered that self-control cannot be exercised even upon pain of death?

What if a contest were held — of “Who can tell the funniest joke” — and it is between a known comic and again, “The Great One”.  You are one of 3 judges on a panel, and you know that if “The Great One” does not win the contest, you will likely be sent to a Gulag on the next train the morning after.  First, the known comic does his or her routine for half an hour, and everyone “loses it” and laughs with abandonment.  Next, “The Great One” goes through his routine, and everyone laughs just as hard, if not harder.

Can one distinguish between the first half of the contest where everyone has “lost it”, and the second half where the laughter is louder, the rolling on the floor exceeded exaggerated enjoyment, and by all accounts, “The Great One” received the louder laughter?

The force of laughter always possesses that duality of a conundrum: Laughter can be forced, but the force of laughter may not have the same force if force is derived from the forcing of it.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the medical condition has in recent times denied one the genuine force of laughter, it may be time to consider preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, submitted ultimately to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Laughter can be infectious, but when a medical condition deflates and dissipates the quality of one’s life, one’s career, and the incongruence that can come between health and continuation in one’s job, filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application may become a necessity.  When the force of laughter is robbed because of a medical condition that has become chronic and intractable, filing a Federal Disability Retirement application through OPM may be the best option left in order to avoid that hollow laughter that comes from laughing at a joke delivered by “The Great One”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement Benefits: The full emptiness

Beyond the definite article, the two adjectives would remain self-contradictory if the meaning attempting to be projected were either both (A) in the physical sense or (B) in the spatial, cognitive sense.

A further explanation may be in order, here.  Contradictions often occur when words are mistaken to be conveyed in a single dimension, but can be modified if explained that they represent different conditions, occupying a sense of distinction that can be differentiated because of the slight alteration of contextual bifurcation.

Certainly, the terms “full” and “empty” become self-contradictory when applied in a physical sense for both terms; but if either of the terms are meant to represent different dimensions — i.e., “full” in the physical sense and “emptiness” as an emotion or feeling, or vice versa (“full” in an appetitive meaning and “empty” as a physical fact), then the contextual distinction takes on a differentiated meaning.

One often says that such phrases containing self-contradictory terms are merely a “play on words”, and indeed, it is normally intended to convey a thought-provoking compound of a conceptual construct.  The “full emptiness” is an idea that can denote many meanings; perhaps of a life filled with activities, but somehow lacking in meaningfulness; or, of an individual whose outward appearance is one of fulfillment and contentment, but whose soul is wanting because of a tragedy in his or her past.

That has always been the essence of a life worthy of condemnation, has it not?  Of a friction that continues to rub against each other — of appearance versus reality, of internal versus external; the contrast between the inner sanctum of thoughts and the outer reality of what is expressed.  For, of what worth is a life if it cannot be condemned?

The full emptiness is what most of us project to others, and how others behave towards us; that is the unfortunate aspect of living among and amidst each other.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact the ability and capacity to perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the self-contradictory concept of a “full emptiness” is a familiar theme.

The outward appearance must continue to be maintained — of competence, ability to multi-task, and capacity to take it all in; all of this, despite the ongoing medical conditions that debilitate and progressively deteriorate.  The inner reality often tells of a different story: of pain; non-restorative sleep; profound fatigue; physical and mental dysfunctions that are hidden and concealed.

Preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application is a step towards vanquishing the contradiction of a life of full emptiness; it is to recognize that the negative circumstances of the medical condition need not dominate the positive hope that is still held that a career once deemed promising can yet open up into a future undaunted by the medical conditions themselves, by securing a Federal Disability Retirement and focussing upon getting one’s health back into balance so that the conundrum of a full emptiness can become a thing of the past.

Sincerely,

Robert R.McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Stifling rationalism

Although it may no longer show in modernity, it was the dominant methodology accepted as reflecting the Aristotelian belief that man is essentially a rational animal, and thus the general approach towards reaching conclusions should embrace the perspective that the criterion of truth is based upon not sensory, but intellectual and deductive foundations.

But if the thought process fails to utilize the formal laws governing deductive reasoning, and nobody reads Russell or Quine, anyway, what is the difference?  Is it merely an appendage to the conclusion reached, by declaring, “That’s the only logical way to think about this!” – and if we add the exclamation point, state it with a clear and loud voice, does that make it so? What is the distinction to be made, from a valuation or validation viewpoint, between decisions and judgments rendered based upon empirical evidence, deductive or logical reasoning, a combination of both or all three, and the contrast as against an “emotional” basis for reaching conclusions?

If an individual engages in complex futures trading on the stock market, for example, and bases such transactional activities upon unscientific methodologies, is it not the success of the venture (i.e., a retrospective judgment on the matter) that will ultimately determine the success or failure of each approach?

Take the hypothetical of the following: Securities and futures trading can now be done with a laptop from home, and we have Jim, Nancy and Deborah, each of whom thinks that he or she constitutes the brilliance of Wall Street’s best and brightest (though none have had any prior experience but are engaged in vocations far and distant from anything to do with it).

Jim looks at the relevant newspaper quotations and likes the way the numbers coalesce, and makes the trade based upon that comforting sensory impression.  Nancy, in a different state and unbeknownst to Jim, has been pouring over the numbers, calculating, looking at the history of past performances, and creates an algorithm founded upon a calculus of probabilities, and pushes that computer button to deplete one’s bank account based upon mathematical precision that approaches some semblance of certainty, but never quite.  And Deborah, well, she possesses on this day a certain “instinctive” feeling about a particular futures trade, and proceeds entirely upon this emotional response.  Of the three, whom do we consider as validated, worthy of following or respecting of methodologies?

If Deborah were to increase her portfolio by, say, 500%, and Jim merely breaks even but Nancy loses her proverbial shirt, would we dismiss it by thinking, “Ah, just pure luck”?  On the other hand, if Jim were to make a nominal profit, Nancy were to obtain significant returns, and it was Deborah who lost everything, would it change our attitudes and confirm the notion that rationalism prevailed because it is the only valid approach to life’s complexities?

The acceptance of rationalism is inevitable for the rational animal; elevating it to a status where all other approaches are stifled, however, can ignore the spectrum of other dimensions just as valid in human life.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition necessitates preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it may be that “rationality” cautions one to remain in the Federal or Postal job because of job security and financial stability.

But there are other considerations, as well, such as an instinctive will to survive; and when stifling rationalism quiets the voice of health’s call to safety, it may well be time to consider 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.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Preparing for more than a ‘maybe’

We never engage a project with just a ‘maybe’; to do so is to invite a preemptive failure, of sorts.  On the other hand, there are rarely any guarantees in life; just as the victims of Madoff and other historical figures of thievery; a ‘sure thing’ is rarely that, and more likely its counterintuitive opposite.  Chances and opportunities of a lifetime, of course, are touted as ‘maybes’ that should be considered.

Those stories abound of youthful vigor in the parent’s basement tinkering with innovations that will alter the future course of technology and mechanized futuristic inventions; but of that, was it really a ‘maybe’?  Or, as such young stars never had anything to lose, anyway, except for time and the clutter residually left behind in the parent’s basement, any sudden abandonment or stoppage due to lack of progress would have simply meant that the endeavor itself was merely a minor intermission, a brief pause, in an otherwise brighter future for the young to pursue.

No, we don’t deliberately prepare for a ‘maybe’; we may forewarn failure by uttering words that appear tentative; but in almost all instances, we prepare for more than a ‘maybe’.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are beginning the process of preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, how does one enhance the chances of a successful outcome, as opposed to being subjected to the whims of an Administrative Specialist at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management?

Does one merely gather up one’s treatment records and medical notes, and hope for the best?  Do you simply answer the questions on SF 3112A as if there were no legal ramifications inherent in the form of the questions posed?  Do you just take the SF 3112C to your doctor and have the doctor submit whatever his or her medical opinion is, to your Human Resource Office?

There are rarely guarantees in life – that is true, and it is never more so when filing a Federal Disability Retirement application with OPM.  At the same time, however, no one merely prepares for the lesser standard of a ‘maybe’, and in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, it is best to always prepare for more than a ‘maybe’, even if it is less than a guarantee of a sure thing.

Then, again, those who invested with Bernie Madoff also thought that it was a ‘sure thing’, and look where they ended up.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: The Initial Stage

There are multiple stages in a Federal Disability Retirement process.  The term “process” is used here, because it is too often the case that Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who engage this administrative procedure, fail to realize that there are multiple potential stages to the entire endeavor.  That is a mistake that can come back to haunt.  One should prepare the initial stage “as if” – as if the Second, Reconsideration Stage of the process may need to be anticipated, and further, invoking the rights accorded through an appeal with the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.

Why?

Because that is how the Administrative Specialists at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management review each stage – and especially the initial stage of the process – by reviewing the weight of the evidence, conformity to the existing laws concerning Federal Disability Retirement, and considering whether or not an initial denial will involve much resistance at the Reconsideration and subsequent stages of the Administrative Process.

Every Federal Disability Retirement application put together by the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker  and submitted through one’s own Human Resource Department of one’s Federal Agency or the H.R. Shared Services facility in Greensboro, North Carolina (where all Postal Federal Disability Retirement applications are submitted and processed), whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is considered “valid” and a “slam dunk” – precisely because the person preparing the Federal Disability Retirement application is the same person who daily experiences the medical condition itself.

How can OPM deny my claim?  I cannot do essential elements X, Y and Z, and the doctors who treat me clearly see that I am in constant pain, or that I am unable to do certain things, etc.

But the Federal or Postal employee preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application must understand that there is a difference between “having a medical condition” and proving to a separate agency – the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (an entity who will never know you, meet with you or otherwise recognize your existence except in relation to a case number assigned to every Federal Disability Retirement application submitted to Boyers, Pennsylvania) – that such a medical condition no longer allows you to perform all of the essential elements of your official position.

Preparing one’s case for the Initial Stage of the process is important in establishing the foundation for the entire process itself.  It is not merely a matter of “filling out forms”; it is a matter of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one’s medical condition has a clear and unequivocal nexus to the capacity and ability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement: The dynamic duo and the perfect tandem

There are times when life “clicks”; the mistake is made to gaze at one’s navel at such times of apparent perfection, and to try and capture that something in a bottle and attempt a reenactment and regurgitation of that which works, when the reality is that it is merely a fortunate day to be experienced and enjoyed, like the perfect alignment of the planets in macrocosmic reflection upon a molecular structure of abiding mystery.

Batman and Robin represented the former; without words (except in comic-like expressions in the black-and-white version of the television series) and with the ability of almost telepathic-like eeriness, the dynamic duo could battle the forces of evil and protect the unfortunate city of Gotham with nary a wink, a word or a nod.

As for the latter, the team of coordinated bicyclists or the almost mechanized capacity of the coxed eight displaying the repetition of the anatomy of rowing that is all-important for consistency in order to gain the maximum leverage from each rower, as the “catch” and the “extraction” are engaged in a constancy of monotonous display in ballet-like fluidity.

The perfect tandem is a rare achievement; like the Unmoved Mover in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, we can only strive towards that perfection, without ever touching and glancing it.  Can it be reenacted and repeated by sheer will?  That would presume much – as if the arrogance of our own self-knowledge could replace the ignorance displayed in our everyday lives.  But as life does not come with a recipe to follow, that dynamism in duality and the penultimate construct of fluid coordination cannot be reconstructed, if merely because we never own the fullness of knowledge that Being never completely reveals.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, the “dynamic duo” and the “perfect tandem” was often the coordination of one’s career and the accolades received in the very competence of work.  Work balanced one’s personal life in allowing for a sense of achievement to be had; and one’s personal life was enriched in the very mission being accomplished.

Then, along comes a medical condition, such that the medical condition itself became the interruptive and disruptive force; and, suddenly, the dynamic duo and the perfect tandem no long was, or is – depending upon what the meaning of “is” is (sorry, could not refrain from the obvious reference).  When that dynamic duo is fractured, or the perfect tandem disrupted, it is time to rethink a different paradigmatic foundation.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is just such a remedy.  For, once the dynamism of duality is severed, or the perfections of a tandem diminished, it is a loss which can rarely be recapture, and thus it is the perfect time and place in one’s life to consider preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed (ultimately) with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire