OPM Medical Retirement: Consistency

For over twelve years, the lack of intervening language contradicting the narrative as put forth by the NBC news anchor allowed for an intended image to prevail; it was only when language from other sources began to intersect, and to refute or otherwise unravel, the factual underpinnings as propounded by the individual, that retractions, admissions and apologies had to be declared and conveyed.  But for those other intervening statements, the language game as played by the news anchor would have continued to dominate, and history would have been remained unquestioned.

Language games, as described and discussed by Wittgenstein, are funny animals; there are, of course, the “facts” and the reality as first encountered in the objective world surrounding us; but once that encounter has occurred, what is left is the correspondence and communication through the medium of our language.  It is through language that past historical occurrences are communicated; and so long as the language used by all others do not contradict or otherwise make misfits of the language game one is playing, all goes well.

It is like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle; the longer one stays at it, the greater the picture becomes entrenched; but once a piece of the greater puzzle manifests a misfit, or it becomes clear that there are either pieces missing or ones that don’t belong, then the entirety of the whole begins to crumble. We tend to place all of such occurrences under the general aegis of “consistency“.

Submission of a Federal Disability Retirement application by a Federal employee or a U.S. Postal worker has a parallel effect.  You begin with a factual basis:  the medical condition.  Beyond the factual basis, one must then begin to formulate a “Statement of Disability” as propounded on SF 3112A, where the description and delineation must include the logical connection to one’s positional requirements and why you cannot perform one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal position.

Here, consistency is crucial; how one characterizes the nexus between the medical condition and the essential elements of one’s job; the manner of one’s description; the consistency of application and bridge between the two elements of the case, the medical condition and the positional requirements of the job.

It is, ultimately, a language game precisely because a Federal Disability Retirement application is a presentation submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and whether the applicant for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the pieces of the puzzle which make for an effective Federal Disability Retirement application all must fit to make up the wholeness of that which matters most in any language game:  consistency.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Coordinating the Elements of Success

Coordination is something taken for granted; it is only when there is a visible lack of coordination that one comes to appreciate that which has been taken for granted.  Thus, when a disjointed presentation is viewed; a play or a movie without a coherent theme; an unskilled person attempting a skill-based sport; a person trying to “wing it” when such an endeavor cannot be accomplished without prior practice and perseverance:  it is the bad play which brings to the fore the importance of coordination.

Thus, for the Federal and Postal Worker who is contemplating filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is the disjointed application, the one without a coherent structure or lacking of the necessary connections between the primary three (3) elements:  the law, the personal narrative, and the medical foundation; that is when a Federal Disability Retirement application is in trouble at the outset.

Coordinating the necessary elements will greatly enhance the chances of a successful Federal Disability Retirement application.  It is when there is a lack of such coordination that the inherent inconsistencies and lack of evidentiary substantiveness will become apparent; sort of like the minor leaguer who tries to reenact the play of a major league type, only to find that it isn’t quite the same.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Logic versus Pragmatic Social Policy

In a Federal Circuit Court case a few years ago, a dissenting opinion concerning Federal Disability Retirement benefits argued that it was “contrary to logic” to allow for Federal or Postal employees to become eligible for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS if they have been accorded light duty and allowed to remain in his or her official position while not performing many of the essential elements of the job.  

The “logic” which is argued here is based upon the paradigm that, so long as one is allowed to continue to work and receive a paycheck, one should not be considered “disabled”.  But such an argument refuses to acknowledge both the law (under the Bracey v. OPM decision), as well as good economic and social policy.  

The fact is that under Federal Disability Retirement rules, laws and case-laws, what the Administrative Judges and Courts have acknowledged is that a Federal or Postal worker should not be subjected to the arbitrary whims and actions of a single supervisor or Agency; instead, there should be a criteria upon which a Federal or Postal worker should be able to rely upon.  That objective criteria is in essence as follows:   A Federal or Postal worker should have to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job.  If not, that Federal or Postal worker is deemed “disabled” under the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  

While an Agency may allow for light duty, or temporary assignments, such light duty or temporary assignments should not preclude the obvious fact that the Federal or Postal worker continues to remain disabled.  This way, there is an objective criteria of the law to be followed, which cannot be altered based upon the arbitrary whim of a Supervisor or an Agency, who may come along a year later and disallow all light duties or temporary assignments.  Thus, in this case, the social and economic policy as envisioned under the Federal Disability Retirement rules, regulations and laws, are not only pragmatic, but logical.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: The Tyranny of Logic

The general concept of ‘tyranny’ is normally reserved for extreme cases of autocratic emblems of dictatorships, governmental overreaching, denial of due process, etc., and is rarely used in addressing issues arising in Federal Disability Retirement laws governing Federal and Postal workers who are attempting to access an employment benefit which is part of the Federal and Postal employment package — that of Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.  In this use of the term, however, it is in conjoining two independent concepts:  that of ‘tyranny’ and that of ‘logic’.  The compounding of the terms results in a concept which is applicable in a positive sense.  Allow me to explain. 

In the course of filing for Federal or Postal disability retirement benefits, when one is denied at any level of the administrative process, one has a right to a further appeal.  Thus, if the application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is denied at the First Stage of the process, then you have a right to have it ‘reconsidered’ (called the “Reconsideration Stage“, appropriately).  If it is denied a second time, you then have the right to file an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board — and beyond.  At each stage of the process, one hopes that in the review and evaluation of the Federal Disability Retirement application, first by the Office of Personnel Management, then by an Administrative Judge, then by a Federal Appellate Judge, that a set of legal criteria is fairly and uniformly applied, such that the ‘tyranny of logic’ rules.  In this sense, ‘tyranny’ is meant to apply in a positive sense, in that a logical, fair and uniform application of the law is applied to the set of facts presented by the Federal or Postal disability retirement application.  This all assumes, of course, that somewhere along the line of the ‘food-chain’ of review, that someone has been exposed to either logic, logical argumentation, or the ‘rules of logic’.  Hope springs eternally.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire