FERS Disability: Enhancing the Chances for Success

Every missed opportunity lessens the chances for a successful outcome, and when you are dealing with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the FERS system, and specifically when attempting to obtain a Federal Disability Retirement from them, you must take every opportunity to reinforce and take advantage of each chance given.

At every turn when OPM requests further information, such communication provides an opportunity to cite a legal precedent in characterizing the strength of your position or to reiterate the legal basis as to why your case merits further consideration beyond the “run of the mill” cases.

Can you argue the Bruner Presumption even if you have not been separated from Federal Service?  Can you make an argument by analogy?  Can you argue the “inconsistency” argument as propounded in Henderson v, OPM, or the 4-part test in Bracey?

By making such arguments at every opportunity presented, you enhance your chances for successfully being approved for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  For, in the end, all roads in a Federal Disability Retirement case lead to an appeal with an Administrative Judge at the U.S, Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and OPM is fully aware of this plain fact.

Because OPM knows that successive denials of a FERS Disability Retirement case will ultimately lead to an appeal to the MSPB, citing relevant case laws at every opportunity presented will enhance your chance for success.

Contact a disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin to enhance your chances for success in obtaining an approval for your FERS Disability Retirement application.

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: The Words We Choose

Is there a psychological study of those who choose certain words as opposed to others?  Does the choice of words reveal who we are?  Antiquated words — like “husband and wife” — as opposed to the modern usage of “partners” or “significant other”; do they merely unravel a generational divide, and has the replacement verbiage been thoroughly vetted, thought out, considered, reflected upon?

“Partners” certainly implies an equality of station, as does “significant other” (where “neutrality” of gender identification appears to be the primary purpose) — but in the end, someone has to empty the dishwasher, take out the garbage, pick up the dog poop, cut the grass, change the diapers, work to make enough money to earn and make a living, etc.; and when all is said and done, the division of labor seems to naturally work itself out such that the words we choose matter less as one grows older.

The words we choose often reveal more of the innocence of our inexperience, more than some politically meaningful apparatus of choice.  In fact, what we think we choose is often done without thought, is forced upon us, or we are hoodwinked into thinking that certain words — by merely stating them — somehow empowers us, when in fact they merely conceal our insecurities.

“Husband” is the guy who takes out the garbage and opens the door for his wife to enter; “Wife” is the woman who softens the coarseness of a still-insecure guy who fell head-over-heels to marry his wife.  “Disabled”, too, is a relative term, but in a Federal Disability Retirement case, it has a special significance which requires thoughtfulness in the words we choose when preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.

The word-usage and choosing of words is relevant and significant; for, as the legal standard to meet for eligibility purposes in a Federal Disability Retirement application is different from other venues, the words we choose are important in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Contact a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and take care in the words which are chosen.

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 Disability Retirement Benefits: The Referee

There has always been an endless debate as to the preparatory value of playing sports — does engaging in competitive sports prepare one for the “real world”; do individualized sports (i.e., tennis, swimming, running, etc.) access the same “benefits” as “group” sports (i.e., basketball, football, soccer, baseball, etc.)?

Does “team” spirit, cooperative engagement with others, a sense of “belonging”, of sacrificing for the greater whole, etc., have any benefits in “preparing” one for the adult world of work and capitalism?  Or, does it merely reinforce certain negative instincts which “civilized” society has been trying to expunge for the past century?

Then, of course, there is the question of the referee — the role of one; whether and to what extend bias and favoring is involved; or, whether we should merely rely entirely upon instant replay and other electronic devices?  Should the “human factor” be allowed to rule, or should a game be determined by the precision of a computer program?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition necessitates filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, don’t be fooled into thinking that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is an unbiased “referee” who will make a fair determination on your Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sports (at least the amateur kind) may be for fun and good health, but filing for your Federal Disability Retirement is for “real life”.

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and make sure that you have the proper advocacy to win your case.  For, while the “referee” (OPM) may be empowered to make the call of denying or approving your Federal Disability Retirement application, it is your lawyer who advocates to influence OPM to make the “right” call.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: Nothing New Under the Sun

Nothing is ever new under the sun; it is only from the perspective of the new that “newness” is perceived.  Thus, if you live long enough, you will witness the identical political issues come around, the same problems crop up, and parallel arguments made.

History has an innate cycle; it is merely our memories which fail to recognize the repetition.  Sometimes, of course, the old metaphor of something being dressed up in wolves’ clothing is also appropriate — meaning, merely, that the issue itself is an old one; it has merely changed its appearance in order to make it look new.

From the newborn’s perspective, of course, everything is new, fresh and pure — well, maybe not pure, if you count the dilapidated buildings, bridges and abandoned ballrooms.  To the newly initiated, the term “new” merely means that it has not previously been encountered; no memory of it exists; and the newness is based upon the premise that it has not been experienced until now.

Nevertheless, despite the protestations by the newly initiated that it is “new” to them, the plain fact is that there really is nothing new under the sun.

Why do we use the term, “under the sun”?  Because it describes the parameters of our phenomenological experience — of this universe and this planet.  Even the recent video footage from the drone helicopter showing us the “new” terrain on Mars is not really “new”; it’s been there for centuries.

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 medical condition itself is clearly something “new”.  Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM will be a new experience.

What you want to do, however, is to consult with a Federal Disability Attorney whose experience and knowledge will show that even that experience is nothing new under the sun; otherwise, you might end up being guided by someone who doesn’t really know what he or she is talking about.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

OPM Disability Retirement for Federal & Postal Workers: The Argument

When does a “discussion” turn into an “argument”?  Of course, the difference and distinction is sometimes a matter of perspective.  Tone, tenor and even facial expressions can certainly influence whether an exchange is a discussion or an argument.  The raising of voices, the mannerism of the participants — listening to two people on radio speaking about a subject can also alter the listener’s perspective concerning the distinction.

The word itself — “argument” — of course, can have different meanings.  Some people prefer the usage of a euphemism — that “so-and-so had a heated discussion”, as opposed to describing it as an argument.  Friends often employ such terminology after the fact in order to blunt the effect of any discord which may have arisen.

One can “advance an argument” without raising one’s voice, but a spousal argument normally involves a heated exchange.  A meandering discussion can be interrupted in order to re-focus the exchange, with the admonition of, “What is the argument you are making?”  Or, in a debate, the moderator will often intercede and pointedly ask, “So, would you please clarify your argument?”

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are attempting to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is the “main” argument of the case — that you are medically unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of your job — but then, there are multiple and complex other “sub-arguments” which must be made (e.g., issues concerning performance, accommodations, sufficiency of medical evidence, etc.).

You need to sharpen your arguments, streamline them and make sure that, first and foremost, you know what all of the issues are to begin with.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who knows not only the legal arguments to advance, but the “discussions” which must be addressed — even if it gets somewhat “heated”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Information: Yesterday’s sorrow

Yesterday’s sorrow may not be able to be put aside today, or even tomorrow; but yesterday’s sorrow may be today’s, or of the morrow if left unattended to.

Sorrow can take many forms; of the weight of anxiety and worry; of a traumatic event or occurrence; of news of a tragedy that touches one’s soul to the core; and if left unattended, or ignored or otherwise bifurcated, truncated or misplaced in the everyday hullabaloo of life’s travails that become lost in desiccated splices of yesterday’s memories, they can nevertheless remain with us in the subconscious arenas that become tomorrow’s paralysis.

Life is tough; loneliness in life becomes the daily routine of daily sorrow; and even when surrounded by family, so-called friends and acquaintances and even of spouse and children, the sense of being alone in the world can be overwhelming.  Who can understand, let alone sympathize, with one’s sorrows of yesterday when today’s trials cannot be conquered?  And who can fathom the contests yet to be met when we can barely handle the residue and crumbs of yesterday’s sorrow?

Yet, we all recognize that yesterday’s sorrow will be today’s shadow of haunting victuals, and even of tomorrows feast for beasts who prey upon the meals left unfinished; and yet we must persevere, with each day leaving some leftovers and allowing for the garbage heap to become more and more full, until one day the garbage we left in our lives spills over into a raging delirium of uncontrollable fright.

Yesterday’s sorrow is today’s mirror of what tomorrow may bring if left unreflected in the image of how we view ourselves.

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 duties, yesterday’s sorrows may be the medical conditions themselves which have become a chronic and unrelenting obstacles to today’s victory, and of the morrow’s fulfillment.

Preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted ultimately to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, may be the best course of action in attending to yesterday’s sorrows, lest they become today’s burden and tomorrow’s nightmare.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Medical Retirement: Meeting the basic requirements

As with any endeavor, meeting the basic requirements is the minimum standard.  For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, it is important to understand the basic eligibility requirements in order to qualify for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Here are a few: The minimum Federal Service requirement (18 months); of having a medical condition during the tenure of one’s Federal Service that prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position; and an inability by the agency to provide reasonable accommodations or reassignment; and some further factors to be considered, as well.

Beyond the basic requirements, of course, are the technical issues that have developed over many years and decades, primarily through statutory interpretation as expounded in court cases and decisions handed down by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  There are, moreover, legal refinements and interpretations that go beyond the “basics”, and while meeting the basic requirements is an important start, it is critical to understand the technical legal refinements which have evolved over the years. “Always start with the basic requirements; and from there, consult with an expert for further details.”

Such is the sage advice often given before involving oneself in a complex process, and Federal Disability Retirement Law is one such administrative endeavor that should take such counsel into account.

Start with meeting the basic requirements — of the minimum 18 months of Federal Service; of having a medical condition such that the Federal or Postal employee is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job; and from there, seek the advice and counsel of an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law — another “basic requirement” in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire 
OPM Disability Retirement Attorney

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Past wrongs obsessed over

We cognitively compartmentalize, despite the fact that life doesn’t quite work that way.  Yet, if we do not categorize, relegate by priority of issues, the mirroring of the objective universe in a parallelism of societal constructs can result in the same messiness that life itself reveals.  We certainly do not want to manage and operate a household in the same way that nature works – where events can suddenly dictate emergencies, and when life and death decisions sound alarms whenever predators lurk about.

Reaction to the immediacy of necessity is how nature must operate; such an approach, however, is not always the best way for the office worker, the architect or the laborer to engage the projects of the day.  Yet, life sometimes requires reactive discourse and engagements; we cannot always be contemplative, distant, removed from the concerns which the objective world imposes upon us.

What is the “middle ground” – that proverbial height of mediocrity which all men and women pride themselves for:  the center between the two extremes, the “compromise” position that reflects rationality and reason, where vice is never to be completely refused and virtue too alien a concept such that we relegate it to angels, madmen and those who have lost their souls for a celibate fantasy of isolation.

Then, of course, human beings have the strange capacity to obsess over past wrongs committed – either by ourselves upon others, but more likely of those which have been perpetrated upon ourselves.  Hurts and wrongs penetrated leave room for vengeance and premeditation; we are admonished and given the tools to forgive, but harboring carefully concealed slights is a delicious means of fantasizing upon wreaking revenge upon those we secretly abhor.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, part of the key to writing an effective SF 3112A – Applicant’s Statement of Disability – is to refrain from engaging past wrongs obsessed over.

Yes, the Agency or the U.S. Postal Service has “done you wrong”; yes, they have gotten away with this, that and the other things; and, yes, in a perfect world, the individuals involved and the entity perpetrating the wrongs should pay a price and justice should prevail.  But the messiness reflected in the objective world reflects an imperfect human pathology, and trying to attain a Platonic Form of Justice otherwise nonexistent, will not help you “move on” with your own life.

Better to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application and move on so that you can focus upon your health and future, than to constantly become entrenched in past wrongs obsessed over; for, in the end, the smile of self-satisfaction should be when one’s OPM Disability Retirement application is approved, and you can wave goodbye to the messy cauldron of human detritus you are leaving behind.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement from Federal Government Employment: Terms

Language is a malleable vehicle.  There have been times in the history of language, when the staid and stodginess period of loss of vibrancy became the rule, followed by epochs of radical vicissitudes, upheavals and counter-conventional revolutions in the medium of language games.  Whether this encapsulated slice of linguistic alteration, upending traditional forms of communication because of electronic media and the hype of language abbreviated by Twitter, Texting and Tablet Titillations, will last the short life of technological innovation and obsolescence, is yet to be determined.

For example, the time of Shakespeare’s linguistic explosion of experimentation and expansive usage became in retrospect a richness of entering into connotative language meanings from which we benefit to this day.  But steadiness, continuity and conditions of stability are also important in order to take the proverbial breather to accept, embrace and assimilate (a term widely used for contextual purposes in modernity applied to immigration reform, as well) the linguistic revolutions that become incommensurate with meaning, communication and conveyance of terms.

Terms are important, both in common usage and in technical application.  In the arena of Federal Disability Retirement Law, different words are splayed about, sometimes without regard to proper application, especially when the “law” often requires a greater attention to precision of meaning.  Some simple and common crossovers of linguistic confusion involve:  “medical retirement” and “disability retirement” – do they mean the same thing?

If reference to either term involves the submission for an early retirement to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, then the answer is “yes”, they do mean the same thing.  Federal Disability  Retirement is identical to “Federal medical retirement” if by such words the query is referring to filing for an early retirement based upon the Federal or Postal worker’s inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position, and therefore the intention is to access an early annuity because of one’s early retirement based upon the medical condition, and submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Some other terms often confused or conflated:  “On-the-job injury” or “pre-existing condition”; these terms are often used in the language-arena of Worker’s Compensation issues, and rarely have any import – or applicability, at all – in the context of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  For, in a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the applicant is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it matters not whether or not one has been disabled “on the job” or away at a skiing accident; instead, what is important is the impact of the injury or disease upon one’s ability and capacity to perform the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal position.  As for a “pre-existing” condition – that, too, is more likely appropriately defined in an OWCP context, and rarely in filing a Federal Disability Retirement application.

In any event, “terms” are meant to be used within a context-appropriate content of filings, and in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, it is important to clarify and conform to the applicable statutory mandates in defining and using the terms which are most appropriate and effective.

For, in the end, the explosion of language during the era of Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Age reverberates with critical linguistic richness to this day; yet, if we were to have a conversation with a bloke from that era, the terms employed would not only confuse us, but confound us with a profound sense of despairing lack of cogency despite our self-aggrandizing declarations of superiority and advancement in the modern parlance of greater self-esteem.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The pendulum swing

Time used to “march on”, and the pendulum swing was a metaphor which everyone understood.  No more.  The digital age of technological superiority has made such inane profundities left stacked upon the history of obsolescence.  But for cherished grandfather clocks in hallways of mansions forgotten, or in the mysteries of worn novels where the tick-tock represented the anticipation of the sudden death scream; the slow, mechanical device which moves to and fro, left to right, right to left, and into the eternal progression of marked time, is but an irritant for the noise it makes.

Have we outlasted the utility of mechanical complexity?  Does the software program in which we see nothing but an algorithm of undecipherable content ever transcend the fascination we glean from springs, weights and mechanisms of human innovation?

The time piece too heavy to carry about, yet never replaced the pocket watch transferred with generational delight, and reflected the craftsman’s care in perfecting the soul of a person’s worth.  Somehow, the digital face of a blinking light flashing when the electrical surge fails to protect, is not the same as the quiet peace of an undisturbed house when the pendulum ceases to swing because the owner forgot to adjust the weights.  And history now forgets, too, doesn’t it?

Are we at the far side of the extreme, never to swing back, because there is no pendulum to remind us?  Can the death of the clockmaker mean the end of reason and compromise, because there is no metaphor to realize, anymore?  We tend to believe that such metaphors follow upon a literary device of recognizing something more than the mere fodder of mechanical devices; but what if the opposite were true – that the cadence of history required the invention of the pendulum itself, and the stoppage of such back-and-forth, to-and-fro means that only the extremes of disproportionate swings will remain frozen as the epicenter of man’s egregious faults?

We assume much; and when we presume to follow history’s dialectical progression without considering the actions within our own willpower, Nietzsche’s eternal return to the bosom of our follies will surely unravel and reveal itself in the face of our reflected foolishness.  And so, as the proverbial pendulum has stopped, stuck in the timeless middle of muddled quietude, so the failure to make any progress in our own personal lives will be another lost metaphor in the eternal dustbin of forgotten concerns.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Workers who want to break the cycle of being stuck perennially in the quicksand of mediocrity, it may be the ripened time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether you are under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.  For, as time fails to move without the movement of objects surrounding, so the human frailty of non-movement and inertia is a broken mechanism deep in the recesses of the human heart.

Taking the next step – any step – in filing for Federal Employee Disability Retirement benefits with OPM, is at least a slight movement, a reverberation, of that time harkening for the pendulum to swing back to its proper place of origin.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire