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

 

FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement for Federal and USPS Workers: ICM versus ICBM

During the Cold War era, the latter acronym was familiar to most, as fears were magnified as to the intercontinental capacity of the U.S.S.R. (those who can still decipher this immediately reveals one’s age).  In those days, one did not need to know the Eastern European countries by name; they all fell under the satellite rubric of the “union” of those with “the Bear”.  ICBMs were counted and their capacity and efficacy were determined by the exponential powers of the number of “warheads” attached.

ICMs, on the other hand, are a fairly recent phenomenon. They show the extent, or the lack thereof, in what agencies and individuals with minor fiefdoms will perpetuate.  They can also be metaphorical antonyms of ICBMs, in that when one possesses an ICM, it can result in the prevention of an ICBM being launched across the barricades of time.

For Federal and Postal employees who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, because of a medical condition which is impacting one’s ability to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job, it is important to utilize one’s hoard of ICMs.

Agencies often have no need or, rather, they will often disregard the need, to engage in utilizing impulsivity control mechanisms, because they have the power to hire, fire, reprimand, reassign or otherwise penalize the serfs of this world. But for the Federal or Postal employee who is contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, it is important to apply the various impulsivity control mechanisms available, including resisting the urge to inform a supervisor until the proper time; the inclination to make derogatory references about the workplace in one’s Statement of Disability; and other impulses which may ultimately harm the goal of attainment sought: of a Federal Disability Retirement annuity, granted through an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

For, in the end, the ICBMs remained in cold storage [sic], precisely because the greater instinct for humanity’s survival depended upon the evolutionary relevance of ICMs.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: The Efficacy of an Argument

If a security system is never triggered, can one conclude that it has been effective?  Is the failure of a system more telling than its lack of use?  Can the negation of a fact be used to prove its existence and the validity of a theoretical construct?  Can one argue, See — X did not occur; therefore Y must have occurred?  In terms of pure propositional logic and its internal system of validity, one can conclude that certain logical constructs are on their face invalid and contain fallacies.

This was one of Wittgenstein’s points concerning human language games:  the very self-contained artifice of the universe of meaning possesses no reflective correspondence to the physical world; and, in today’s parallel universe of the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, emails, etc., the technological artifice which encapsulates so much of our lives only serves to exponentially magnify such lack of corresponding significance.

In making legal arguments in an OPM Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is often important to understand the context within which the legal argument is being made.  One never knows whether, and to what extent, any particular legal argument is effective; and sometimes all that can be made is the pretext of the argument, and to leave the substantive impact for future application.

For example, does the fact that a person has received a “proposed removal” have the same impact as one who has in fact been removed for his or her medical inability to perform one’s job?  Or, similarly, does a person who receives a VA rating determination of “unemployability” have the same impact as one who is allocated with a 90% disability rating, arrived at through various lesser ratings and combinations thereof?

The effectiveness of any argument will depend upon the level of persuasion employed; the level of persuasion will be contingent upon the validity of the sequential connections of often independent logical statements; and the force of a conclusion will be determined by the strength of its weakest link.  If an argument of negation must be employed, take care to do so by linking it to an undeniable fact.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire