Disability Retirement for Federal Workers: Perfection in the details

Why is it that we never question the statement, “Well, this is an imperfect world; but in a perfect world…”.  What is “perfection” and who defines it?  Doesn’t it all depend upon the details within the definition?  Is a “perfect world” the same for everyone, across all cultural lines and within every community?  Or does it vary depending upon one’s background and upbringing?  Would a picture of a “perfect world” be the same, say, for a pious, religious zealot as opposed to a hedonist?  How about the contrast between a Libertarian and an Authoritarian?

So, in a recent description about an individual who was known to have held conservative religious beliefs, but who concurrently believed in weapons production and advanced technological weaponry, the question was asked by a student whether there was a contradiction between faith held and work engaged, and the answer was: “Well, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need any such weapons; but this being an imperfect world, we would have to defend ourselves.”

To this answer, of course, there appeared no “follow-up” question; but shouldn’t there have been?  Such as: What is your vision and definition of a “perfect world”?  Well, one might answer, a perfect world is one in which everyone is allowed to be free to do what he or she wants without fear of retaliation or offense.  But is that a viable vision of a perfect world?

As freedom and liberty is never a license for unfettered actions, so a Hobbesian State of Nature cannot be the foundation for perfection.

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, the lack of perfection achieved is already self-evident: One’s health is a testament to that; and the manner in which the Federal Agency or the Postal unit has reacted to one’s health, is also an indicator of an imperfect world.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management may not be the perfect solution for the circumstances one is in, but then, we neither live in a perfect world nor must contend with a semblance of one.  Perfection matters in the details of every endeavor, and it is the striving towards perfection that matters, not in the achievement of it.

In preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application, always remember that there is never a “perfect case” where OPM will unquestionably approve it; but in preparing an application for Federal Disability Retirement, it is wise to seek the counsel of an experienced attorney in order to reach a level of perfection where, in retrospective regret, one does not have to needlessly say, “Well, in a perfect world…”

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement under FERS & CSRS: Technically correct

What does a person mean when it is said, “Yes, that is technically correct”?  Does it matter where the inflection resides, or which part of the statement is emphasized?  If greater syllabic magnification is placed on the word itself, whilst the remainder of the sentence is left in a monotone of boredom, is something else being conveyed beyond the mere words declared?

What if the hesitation on the first word is elongated, as in, “Ye-e-e-s, you are technically correct.”?  Or, how about this one:  “Y-e-e-e-s…you ARE technically correct.”?  Further, why do we always expect a conjunction to follow, as in, “Yes, you are technically correct, but…”?  Does such a sentence imply that a person can also be un-technically correct?  If so, what would that mean and what factors would be included in coming to such a conclusion?

What practical or real-life consequences are inherent in the truth of such a statement, such that it might alter or modify our approach to a given subject?  If an engineer is building a skyscraper and turns to the architect and says,” Yes, you may be technically correct, but the entire building could nonetheless collapse” — how is it possible that the architect could be “technically correct” yet mistake the un-technical side of things such that it could result in a life-threatening disaster?

Or, in law, if a lawyer is “technically correct” but might nevertheless lose a case before a jury, does that mean that the “technical” argument in the law may not carry the day because the jury might take into consideration factors other than the law itself in rendering its collective decision?  Yet, isn’t “the law” nothing more than an aggregate of technicalities to begin with, and therefore, does it even make sense to speak of being “technically correct” within the purview of the legal arena?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are contemplating preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be technically filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether technically under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it may be technically correct that certain legal criteria must be technically met; however, when putting together a Federal Disability Retirement application, just remember that the technically sufficient Federal Disability Retirement application should always, technically speaking, contain an aggregation of medical documentation, legal argumentation and personal narrative combined to make an effective presentation, better guided by a legal technician otherwise known as a counselor, attorney or lawyer in this technically empowered universe — technically speaking, of course.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement Attorney: Negating the Sense of Panic

It comes upon all of us; the stealth of the sapping subtlety; the interruption of sleep, once removed in the quietude of dawn’s calm but for the far echoes of distant yearnings once deliberated, but as in the morning dew which forms soundlessly upon the bending blade of beatitude, the slow slide and dissipation tells us with an alarm that awakens:  What am I doing?

Panic is the alarm system which propels with an urgency, and often it results in the furious activity of unproductive futility.  Are we merely spinning our wheels?  A sense of one’s fate, the inevitability of timeless onslaught; these are all buttons pushed which call upon a person to act.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact and prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position, the sense that “something” needs to be done is always just around the next proverbial corner, and leaves one with the feeling of unease and panic.  And while King Lear may admonish his daughter of brevity by noting that nothing comes from nothing, the “something” which we do should not be merely engaging in acts of futility, but constructive advancements toward a teleological embracing of an identified goal.

Preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, for the Federal employee and the U.S. Postal worker, is a concrete goal with tangible benefits to be accrued.

As panic is an ephemeral but powerful sense of the unknown, the antidote to performing non-constructive modes of activities is to recognize, identify and initiate a concrete process with actual ends; and for the Federal or Postal worker who has realized that continuation in the Federal or Postal job is no longer a viable option, preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, will help to negate that nagging sense of panic, and compel one towards a constructive and productive future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The Misfit

The herd mentality must of necessity have a survivability factor; otherwise, there is little to explain the illogical repetition of the historical recurrence of human folly for behavioral anthropology.  In the modern era, being “different” is a sign of rebellion, and the cultural tidal wave of the Sixties in altering the normative landscape of music, art, religion and social customs, revealed the pinnacle of self-destructive behavior — until it became clear that being a misfit itself was merely the convention.

Behaving “normally” means that one does not make “waves”; in a highly bureaucratized society, the importance of non-innovation and complete compliance is regarded as sacrosanct.  Loud, boisterous behavior; conduct outside of the normative inflexibility of societal perspectives; that which is acceptable as quirkiness or eccentricities, as opposed to destructive explosions of tendencies bordering upon insanity; the invisible line between the misfit and clinical commitment to a psychiatric facility is a thin reed, indeed.

Often, however, it is uncontrollable circumstances which impose upon an individual the unwanted label of being an “outsider”.  Medical conditions often have a tendency to promote such a state.  It is like being labeled a plague-carrying contagion by the CDC; once whispered, the rumors begin to spread.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to prevent one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, being labeled a misfit becomes a “given”. Others begin to shy away from an association; some are told bluntly not to have contact with “that one”.

Loss of normative acceptance within any community or society is an important factor for success; somehow, despite all of the legal safeguards, EEO regulations and protective statutes applying to disabled individuals, the herd mentality of yore nevertheless prevails.  For Federal and Postal workers, the only pragmatic exit is to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Is it a retreat or an escape?  Not really; rather, just a means of looking out for one’s own best interests.  The medical condition itself should always be paramount in considering one’s life; attending to it properly means that one must have the time and energy to treat the underlying malady; and continuing in an employment atmosphere where acceptance is avoided, and empathy is rare, is also an unstated definition of engaging in self-flagellation.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire