CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Deliberative Intent

Thomas Nagel is best known for continuing to remind us of the problem of consciousness in a world which attempts to reduce all acceptable explanations into a language game of reductive materialism.

In his famous essay, he went a step further — by arguing for the position that, yes, there are peculiar and unique characteristics of a conscious species, but more than that, the greater profundity is, How is it like to be X, as X?  Thus the insightful essay, What is it like to a bat, as a bat?  For, it is the last linguistic appendage which makes all the difference — as an X.  Without it, we would be left merely with our imaginations as to what it would be like to be X; with the dependent grammatical appendage, we are forced to consider that there is a unique “something”, whether it be consciousness, spirit, mind, or some other non-physical existence, which uniquely makes X to be something other than the composite of physical characteristics.

How does this relate to Federal Disability Retirement for Federal and Postal Workers under FERS or CSRS? Probably nothing, other than that, on a Saturday morning, after having started Nagel’s recent work, Mind & Cosmos, it becomes an interesting proposition as to how much deliberative intent — i.e., the use of that “other” part of humanity, such as consciousness, awareness, etc. — is utilized, as opposed to a mere mechanistic approach to things.

Human beings are inherently lazy.  Templates exist in order to ease one’s work.  OPM often violates the very essence of its duties by merely regurgitating language which is worn and used.  But for the Federal or Postal Worker who must contend with the cold, non-deliberative physical universe, each battle with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management must be fought by thinking, pondering, applying legal principles which are effective and persuasive.

Only with deliberative intent can one contest and contend against a universe which is uncaring, unfeeling, and impassive to the condition of human suffering.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Understanding a Differing Perspective

Sometimes, all that one can do is scratch one’s head.  That common statement — to “scratch one’s head” — is meant to convey puzzlement or disbelief over an action, statement, or occurrence which belies rational explanation.  As rationality has been the foundation of thoughtfulness and considered formulations of explainable actions, so logic and reason have been the joists which provide the bridging support for acceptable discourse.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, one assumes that there will be a fair and reasoned review of each Federal Disability Retirement application.

If a Federal Disability Retirement application is approved, then of course the level of rational discourse need not be extensive — for, implicit in the approval itself is an acknowledgement that the legal nexus between the medical conditions described and the statutory criteria required to be met, have been adequately constructed.  But in a denial, one would expect a well-reasoned discourse of “why”, as opposed to a standard template of identifying various documents submitted, and multiple declarative statements (with barely a rational explanation) of, “You do not meet criteria No. X”.

Often, it is a waste of time to try and understand the perspective of OPM.  The Office of Personnel Management is an agency which is busy and overwhelmed with a volume of cases.  Time constraints often betray the proper application of the law.  It is well that the old saying did not refer to scratching one’s back; for, there are many places where one simply cannot reach in order to scratch, and that is the sense one is left with in reading some of OPM’s denials.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Accountability

One often asks the question, “Well, how long can they…” or “Isn’t there some law that can force them to…”   Ultimately, such questions asked, and any similar or related ones, in the entire process designated as “Federal Disability Retirement process under FERS or CSRS” has to do with the question of accountability.  Have you ever noticed that, where X is accountable to Y, X can be subjected to persuasive arguments, and will often be compliant?  But the larger question is, Who is Y accountable to?  And therein lies the problem.  

That Agency to whom all other agencies are accountable, knows no sense of accountability, but will be the first to hold all others accountable.  Thus, the intermediate agency in a Federal Disability Retirement case, the one who employs the Federal or Postal employee, can be persuaded to complete the Federal Disability Retirement packet and to fulfill its obligations, because such an agency cannot “preempt” the statutory authority of the Office of Personnel Management.  But what argument can be made of the final arbiter, the Office of Personnel Management?  

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire