Federal Disability Retirement Law: Loss of Social Cues

Perhaps, no one will notice.  Or, more likely, there will be a continuum of embarrassing moments, where everyone will merely look the other way and act as if nothing out of the ordinary has occurred.  Truth be told, the loss of social cues has, over time, become palpable; beyond noticeable; more than a sidebar; it is now at a crisis point where normalcy has given way to eccentricity of behavior.

Look at all of the kids entering the school building; surrounded by others, yet lost with heads bent down to take a last look at their smartphones.  Watch as school ends, and what are they all doing — exiting and at the first inkling, the initial inclination?  Out with the smartphones.  Screens are merely paginated snapshots of information; they do not present the human complexities of expressions, grimaces, winces or smiles — all of the compendium of social cues which are picked up in the animal world through real encounters with others.

They are learned over time; imperceptibly; of recognizing tension in the air, of silence so heavy that it feels stuffy.

How do we learn to pick up social cues?  By engaging with other human beings, caring about them, showing some interest and empathy.  Instead, we choose to stare at screens filled with flashing lights; and though the dopamine in our bodies may accelerate and give us an addictive “high”, the loss of social cues is what disintegrates the already-weakened fabric of a clueless society.

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, have you picked up on the social cues of your supervisor or coworkers?  Do they look at you as if you carry the Black Plague?  Are you all of a sudden disinvited from closed-door meetings?

Having a medical condition, trying to hide it, attempting to push through despite your deteriorating health; these are all part and parcel of indicators that a change is needed, and you may want to initiate the change before your agency begins the process of separating you from Federal Service.  Contact a FERS Disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and don’t let the social cues unrecognized lead you to a surprise proposal to remove you from Federal Service.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement from OPM: From Pain to Paper

It is always a challenge to persuade someone that an X exists despite its subjective nature, despite the lack of visual verification.  This is a visual-centered world, and while blindness can be compensated to a certain degree by assistive technology, the plain fact is that sight is the first order to ascertaining the existence of X.

“Pain”, as a subjective phenomenon, fails to exist without certain “circumstantial evidence”, as they say in criminal law.  The presentation of circumstantial evidence can include a multitude of vector-like variables pointing to acceptable indicia of that which cannot be seen, including: MRI and other diagnostic results showing the basis of subjective pain; consistent clinical encounters where declarations of pain are noted by the doctor; observations noted by third parties describing visual validation of gait dysfunction or facial expressions of discomfort; individual instances of weakness, inability to bend or lift, etc.

There is, as well, the ultimate source of information: The person who is in pain; and further, the logical fallacy of “reputation argumentation” can also be employed — of “I am George Washington and cannot lie” argument, etc.  In the end, the utilization of any and all of the above is the only way to move the needle of the gauge which is entitled, “Do I experience pain?” from the left side of the spectrum (where the indicator points to “unbelievable”) to the right side where it clearly states, “Fully Verified”.

Why the U.S. Office of Personnel Management continues to be suspicious of subjective elements such as “pain” is a mystery; for, the law is clear in a Federal Disability Retirement application as to the acceptability of subjective medical evidence, but nevertheless, OPM continues to ride the wild horse of deniability in order to deny Federal Disability Retirement applications.

To apply the proper laws in order to rebut OPM, you should contact an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

Disability Retirement from Federal Jobs: The Time we Spend

The time we spend implies the level of our concern, our interests and our priorities.  The proportionality reveals where one’s “mind’ resides.  If work takes up the greater portion of our lives, then one is deemed a workaholic; if video entertainment seems to dominate, then some will whisper of being “addicted”; or of too much of anything — leisure, pleasures, topical asides or exotic obsessions — the tendency is to make judgments based upon the time given and the attention reserved.

When does an “interest” in something become an addiction or an obsession?  Does it depend upon each circumstance and the context surrounding the reasons imparted?

Certainly, initiating a “start-up” requires greater commitment than to be employed with an established firm; and learning a new activity or engaging a fresh issue will require a greater commitment at the outset.  Medical conditions, as well, often require a greater focus and investment of time. The problem with medical conditions is not the disproportionate time needed, but the time it takes away from other activities — from work; from time with family; from the time previously spent on other necessary activities, including the mundane like taking out the garbage.

For Federal and 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 time we spend on an ongoing medical condition — from taking SL, AL or LWOP (or being deemed AWOL), to being unable to complete tasks, etc. — is an indicator of when a Federal Disability Retirement application should be filed.

To obtain an objective assessment of one’s likelihood for a successful outcome, consult with an Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement from Federal Service: By what right?

It is a question often posed in the dead of night by those who would undermine an assertion based upon an instinctive sense of fairness, but perhaps not able to be articulated in comprehensible form.  By what right do you enter these premises?  By what right do you express that opinion?  By what right do you think you can do that?

It is, as with many questions, one that has a sadly contextual background of a negative past – for, whenever a person, a populace or a segment of a greater society begins to assert a “right”, it was generally preceded by a breakdown of community and caring.  For example: A violation of another’s property where a fence has not yet been placed should be resolved by two neighbors discussing the infraction or infringement without resorting to a higher authority.  If that “neighborliness” cannot resolve the conflict, then a fence may be built and the right to build such a fence can be asserted by the fence-building-neighbor as a “right” of property ownership.  No one would, or could, dispute such a right to do so, but the mere fact that a fence had to be built is evidence of a preceding breakdown of the unspoken rules of a community, where resolution of a conflict could not be accomplished by discussing, caring, understanding and compromising for the sake of a community’s greater good, but instead results in a declarative reference to one’s “right” to do X, Y or Z.

Rights should have the insipid connotation of negativity to the extent that asserting them is something of a last resort and the last bastion of scoundrels and suspicious individuals seen in an unfavorable communal light; but in modernity, shouting out one’s “right” to do this or that, or standing on a soapbox and pontificating about how we (why does everyone assume that he or she has a “right” to speak on behalf of that undefined “we” in the first place?) have every “right” to be here, do this or that or be “in your face” because of the proverbial “catch-all” – the “Bill of Rights”.  By what right?

For Federal and Postal employees who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it may well be that asserting one’s right to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits was preceded by a context of negativity – of the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal facility failing to, refusing to, or otherwise not showing effort for, accommodating one’s medical condition, illness or disability, and that is when the assertion of declaring one’s “right” to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits becomes the inviolable pathway to an exit out of an untenable workplace situation.

To that extent, preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is somewhat akin to building that “fence” between your property and the next-door neighbor’s, whose dog keeps coming into your yard, digging up the freshly-planted bushes and vegetables, pooping all over the place and attacking your cat, and cares not a twit to try and resolve the issue; that, in many ways, is the Federal agency or the Postal facility you work for.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Benefits: The way we live

Did we ever have a voice in it?  Was there a consensus of voices, a roll call of votes cast, or a participatory democracy in action that allowed for a resolution that resulted in it?  Or, as in authoritarian countries (and some would include ours in that category), was there a “Master Planner” who decided that this way we live was the best for all, with likely a minority of few living somewhat separately, and of course we can all be given some breadcrumbs of hope, as in, “If you work hard enough, you too can achieve this…”

We are told that modern technology has lessened the stresses of living; and, to some extent, there is a compelling argument to be made.

Medicine is no longer a barbaric torture chamber (unless you are subjected to its treatments – although, nothing in comparison to surgery without anesthesia or bloodletting by leeches or lacerations in order keep the humors in balance); workplace safety rules, forced labor circumscribed by laws that restrict hours and extent; mandated breaks and general recognition that employer-employee relationships should be honored with a synergistic approach (yes, this is more of a meaningless euphemism than not) – one can argue that modernity of living is far more preferable than the life Hobbes described of being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Must we conclude, then, that all the grumblings about life’s stresses and shortcomings are merely a result of our state of being spoiled?  That there is no true complaint to be made because of our ignorance of history and from whence we came, in comparison to where we are today?

There is, of course, another side to this argument:  In modernity, there no longer exists any “community”, anymore.  The fast pace we live by; the transient nature of the economy forcing mass migration to wherever the jobs appear; the paradigm we ascribe to of being “independent” at a young age; the cult of youth that places an emphasis upon a generation separated from parents, grandparents and family relationships; the freedom and liberty enjoyed for pleasure, without value, normative values or a shared sense of what we believe in, who we are, and where we are going.  Yes, perhaps there was a master planner, but whether of good or evil intent, one must question.

For the Federal or Postal employee, the question of the way we live comes down to a medical concern that leads one to prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.  The way we live and the work that is being done comes to an incommensurate clash for the Federal or Postal employee, and that is when a Federal Employee Disability Retirement application must be properly prepared.  The philosophical musing of the way we live are somewhat of an aside; it is, in the end, the pragmatic steps in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal OPM Disability Retirement application that can make all of the difference.

Pondering upon the roots and causes of the problems regarding the way we live can be set aside for the time being, until an OPM Disability Retirement has been approved.  Once it is approved, we are then presented with some choices; and that, in the end, is worth everything in being able to have the freedom in choosing the way we live.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer: Preemptive Actions

Knowledge can be a dangerous commodity; partial, or little knowledge, can be all the more damaging, precisely because actions can result based upon incomplete information and slices of factually curtailed composites.

The Court of the Appeals for the Federal Circuit has previously pointed out one of the methodological deficiencies engaged in by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in its review and determination of Federal Disability Retirement cases:  of focusing upon that which is not included in a Federal Disability Retirement application, as opposed to reviewing the information of what has been received.

Such a distinction may be a subtle one, and a difference which can be easily overlooked, but it reveals much more than mere word-play.  For, what it manifests is an application of a criteria based upon an erroneous assumption, and one which continues to be applied to this day, despite case-law which admonishes OPM to the contrary.

Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, a 2007 Federal Court of Appeals case, points out the error of OPM’s ways in Federal Disability Retirement cases, where insistence upon “objective” medical evidence continues to dominate, despite the lack of such requirement to the contrary.  Such an issue is especially relevant, of course, in cases where psychiatric medical conditions prevail, and when OPM insists upon the lack of such “objective” medical evidence where none can be obtained, it leads to Federal and Postal employees to react desperately in a preemptively unreasonable frenzy of actions.

Not knowing the law is one thing; knowing, but deliberately ignoring it, is quite another.  But the price Federal and Postal employees pay for when a bureaucracy engages in practices which clearly defy the clear mandate of legal requirement, results in preemptive actions which ultimately lead to another day in Court, to argue that which one thought was previously already established.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire