Context, Content and Vacuums in Federal Employee Disability Retirement Applications

Vacuums constitute space devoid of matter.  In the practical world, the mechanical tool used for removal of unwanted substances merely moves matter from one location to another; in theoretical physics, one encounters complex conceptual discussions which will often involve comparative analysis of partial vacuums in relation to pure vacuums.  Discussions involving vacuums, where a proper context is important in understanding the relational significance of subjects focused upon, and the incomprehensible vacuity of meaningless occurs when conceptual connections are lost because context and substance lose their connective importance.

In the context of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS, too much focus and attention upon peripheral matters, outside of the context of medical conditions in their relationship to positional duties and essential elements of one’s Federal job, will often create a vacuum of significance.

Context is always important; but the extent of detail required, and necessity of issues to be discussed, and the quantitative value of documentation and evidence submitted, may well prove to attain an opposite effect from the one intended. Unintended consequences resulting from intended actions are to be expected in daily life; but where one has decided to pursue an administrative and bureaucratic process where submission of the evidence can be thoughtfully controlled, it is always important to coordinate the relationships between context, content and vacuums.  The descriptive context of an OPM Disability Retirement application; the substantive content of the evidence to be submitted; and the vacuum created by placing evidence in one part of the Federal Disability Retirement application but leaving it omitted from another, results in the intended whole of an effective Federal Disability Retirement packet.

All Federal Disability Retirement applications are filed through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, and because the agency which reviews, approves or denies a Federal Disability Retirement claim is different from the one which originates with the source (with the exception of the injured Federal Employee who actually works with OPM, which can of course happen and has happened), it is important to consider the connective relationship between context, content and vacuums created, both in practical life, in theoretical physics, as well as in the preparation, formulation and filing of a FERS Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
OPM Disability Attorney

 

Disability Retirement from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Concurrent Actions

Idioms often convey an underlying truth recognized and identified by a specific culture or population; they are statements from an experiential aggregation of similitude, based upon a shared set of values.  The phrase, “When it rains, it pours”, is easily a recognizable idiom; that when things go wrong, multiple wrong things tend to occur altogether, all at once.  It is somewhat of a tautology, as when “X is Y, X are Ys”.  But it is in the very pluralization of the outcome which makes the differentiation significant.

For Federal and Postal employees contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS, the engagement of the administrative and bureaucratic process of preparing, formulating and filing for FERS Disability Retirement benefits rarely results in a vacuum.

Often (or perhaps one is forced to begin with the prefatory clause, “All too often”), the long and complex history of harassment, complaints, formal complaints, grievances, lawsuits, EEO filings, etc., precede the filing of a Federal Disability Retirement application, thereby complicating one’s Federal Disability Retirement application with much baggage, historical aggregation of enmity and acrimony, and creating a simple set of causal facts into a convoluted compendium of complexities.  All of a sudden, the soft sounds of rain turn into a downpour of ferocious flooding.

In such cases, in formulating one’s Federal Disability Retirement application, it is important to bifurcate the compounded complexities, and to simplify, streamline and segregate.  From the viewpoint of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the very agency which receives and decides upon all Federal Disability Retirement applications, the mixing of concurrent actions and issues merely complicates matters.

As we all do, we would prefer to hear the soft patter of rain, and not the thunderous mess of a downpour.  Even the plants in the garden recognize that.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Horns & Whistles

Acoustic signaling devices and technological innovations in repackaging information can convey a sense of “newness” and a refreshing sort of alternate sensory perception; however, ultimately, the substantive information which must be presented will require tackling the hard elements of a case.

In presenting a Federal Disability Retirement case to the Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to distinguish between the foundation of the case, as opposed to the “extras” which one may add.  It is like the analogy of the great and master chef who thinks so highly of his or her own skills, that the preparation of the main meal of a course is done without the primary ingredient.  Even the most unrefined and coarse connoisseur can recognize when the steak is missing from a steak dinner.

Thus, in a FERS or CSRS Disability Retirement case, while one’s statement of disability may be persuasive; while “other evidence” by the agency, coworkers, etc. may establish a perspective of medical disability, the foundation of the nexus between one’s medical condition and the positional duties required must be established by the substantive essence of the case — the medical evidence itself.

Don’t mistake the periphery for the center; don’t be fooled by horns and whistles; much noise does not make up for the central requirement in any endeavor.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: OPM’s Methodological Application

Since prior to the time of Plato’s Dialogues, the questions distinguishing between “appearance” and “reality” have pervaded Western philosophical thought, and through that tradition, to the common culture we inhabit.  What a person, entity, organization or group “appears” to do, think, become motivated by, etc., as opposed to the underlying teleological focus, the substantive “substratum” which, in the progressive evolution of philosophical thought, culminated in Heidegger’s explosion and unrevealing of true “Being” as being.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is important to have a rudimentary understanding of the methodological approach of the agency one must deal with — the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  To do so, as one might take Aristotle’s analysis, it is well to understand and evaluate “first principles”.

Yes, OPM is required to apply “the law“.  Yes, certain aspects of “the law”, such as questions concerning accommodations, whether a job offer was ever made by the agency; whether a case appears to have some semblance of situational disability; whether workplace harassment played a role in a Federal or Postal worker’s medical condition — all of these are “considered”.  But that is merely the “appearance” of how OPM approaches a case.

Ultimately, the “reality” of consideration focuses upon the effectiveness and persuasive efficacy of the medical report and records.  Where law, medicine, and common sense meet and collide, is where the reality of a Federal Disability Retirement case ultimately coalesces, and that is why the combination of what the medical evidence says, what the applicant states, and what the law argues, will be the deciding factors in the “reality” of a case, as opposed to the mere appearance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire