Medical Retirement from Federal Government Employment: Precedents and Contingencies

The former constitutes a prior event already established, which may influence and impact current courses and future decisions; while the latter reflects an unforeseen circumstance as yet uncertain, but one which must occur prior to triggering the subsequent act.  Both constitute events which, in their logical sequence, should be prior in time, and satisfied before going on to the next.

In law, without the precedent, there is no argument to be made, except to blaze new trails and create orientations for fresh ones, which can be a dangerous and uncertain line of argumentation.  In Hume’s laws of causal contingencies, the billiard ball which precedes the impact upon the subsequent one matters little, except for the non-existence of the “necessary connection” which is replaced by mere repetition of events.

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 employee or the U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, what matters is the sequential utilization of the duality of concepts.

Precedents of law are there to be argued as strengthening one’s own disability claim, by citing prior issues already decided upon primarily by the U.S.Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Contingencies are the pragmatic decisions made by the Federal or Postal applicant, determining the sequence of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM, in order to present a cogent, coherent and persuasive Federal Disability Retirement case.

Federal Disability Retirement applications prepared and presented lacking the coherency of sequential establishment of contingencies unsatisfied, are tantamount to cases which have no precedents; and the duality of combined mishaps represent a meandering of a rudderless ship.  It is both together which make for an effective OPM Disability Retirement case:  the logical sequence of presentation, and the citing of relevant legal precedents in presenting an effective, coherent and persuasive Federal Disability Retirement application.  And, in the end, isn’t that what we are shooting for?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

The Sequence of Steps during Federal Disability Retirement Filing

Confusion often results in a meandering of purposes; on a graph, it is rarely the linear focus of a clear start point with an end goal; instead, the zig-zagging effect of wasted energies manifests a lack of insight into the procedural methodologies which should be followed in any endeavor.  Just as a broken clock can be correct in telling time twice in a 24-hour period, so an endeavor engaged can sometimes result in an effective product, but one should never rely upon the statistical chance that success will result from confusion.

In a complex conundrum of an administrative, bureaucratic process, such as that represented by filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits for Federal and Postal workers under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it is important to employ a clearly goal-oriented, methodological approach in completing an effective Federal Disability Retirement packet.

Yes, there are many forms to complete (SF 3107 for FERS employees; SF 2801 for CSRS & CSRS Offset; SF 3112 series for all three, FERS, CSRS & CSRS Offset); yes, the tentacles of administrative and procedural requirements are numerous and overlapping, creating a confused cauldron of conundrums one cannot fathom to complete in a rational manner; and, yes, there is an amalgamation of tasks to complete, all within the context of dealing with the medical condition itself, the problems at work (if one is still employed with one’s agency), and the worries overwhelming with future concerns.

But the options are clear and limited; the reasons for filing for Federal OPM Disability Retirement benefits are clear and unequivocal:  as choices in life reflect a linear path with few outlets beyond the stated goal, it is important to identify the efficacy of the steps which are required, and to implement them in the proper sequence in order to reach the intended target:  an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee’s Medical Retirement Programs: Propriety of Sequence

Propriety is not a concept which is much discussed, anymore.  That which is socially or morally “proper” has been discarded, precisely because convention is no longer accepted as a standard to follow.  But when the consistent pursuance of the opposite of X becomes the acceptable standard, does it not then become the convention itself?

Further, some levels of propriety follow upon the thoughtful order of things, and are imposed not because they are artificial societal creations mandated through a history of traditions; rather, it is so because of common sense.  For example, while having a urinal right beside each table in a restaurant may be the most naturally convenient place for utilitarian purposes, the propriety of such placement defies the convention of modesty and privacy concerns; and so it goes.

Sequential propriety is often the best example of logically-imposed events, and failing to follow the linear approach may have unforeseen consequences erupting with problems down the road.  Thus, teaching a child to stop, look, listen — then to cross the road, is both logical, of utility, and linear, with a rational foundation for following upon the sequence of actions.

For Federal and Postal employees contemplating the preparation of a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, the propriety of sequential formulation of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application is important before proceeding. When should the Federal or Postal employee’s Statement of Disability be prepared? When should the Supervisor be approached to complete the Supervisor’s Statement? What should be the sequence and priority of listing of the medical conditions which make up the core of one’s Federal Disability Retirement application? Sequence of propriety is often a combination of naturally-imposed events, as well as logically sound determinations.

Throwing out convention is fine for the unthinking; but there have been many a thoughtless child who, like the symbolism in the well-known story of Holden Caulfield, comes too near the edge of a cliff in a field of rye to deserve comfort of thought and actions.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Problem of the Lowest Common Denominator

What is wrong with going to the essence of the matter, skipping the process, and reducing everything to its lowest common denominator? Doesn’t efficiency demand such an approach? Isn’t the most effective method of attaining an end, to identify the units of measurement which determine the outcome of a potential formula, then to focus upon developing such units and discarding the ancillary components?

The problem with such an approach, of course, should be self-evident: it ignores the meticulous procedural steps which comprise the importance of process. “Process” is often ignored by the second and subsequent generational leaders. It is likened to doing away with the social courtesies and rituals surrounding an activity.

In religious contexts, it represents the sacred steps which one must embrace in order to complete the ritual itself; and, in some societies, the process itself is of greater importance than the completion and attainment of the objective for which it is engaged. To ignore the process and merely piece together the lowest common denominators, is to undermine the relevance of the activity itself. Sequence of ritualistic application is important; how one does it, is often of greater relevance than what one does.

For Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, the time for consideration in filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, has come to a critical point of fruition. But filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is not merely a matter of filling out forms (SF 3107 series for FERS, along with SF 3112 series; SF 2801 series for CSRS, along with SF 3112); for, if that were the case, one should simply do so post-haste.

But that would be a self-defeating proposition; and once the U.S. Office of Personnel Management receives that Federal Disability Retirement application based upon the approach of the lowest common denominator, they may well respond with a similar unit of division: one which takes into account merely the numerical efficiency of a denial, and not the human reality of one’s medical condition.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire