Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: Process versus Substance

The emphasis and magnified focus upon process-issues as opposed to the underlying substance of an endeavor is often misplaced; yet, the problem is, if one ignores the former, the latter may never reach fruition because it may never arrive at its intended destination.  The question of balance between the two is an important one; for, the greatest of ideas may have historically vanished not because the idea itself was one lacking in value, but rather because it never received the sales pitch which effectively presented itself into the stream of commerce.

Similarly, in a Federal Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS or CSRS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, while it is important to understand the administrative process of the “nuts and bolts” of filing (i.e., who does it go to; which form is completed by whom; how long does it take at point X; what happens after destination Y, etc.), it is preliminarily of relevance to get the substance of the application in order (i.e., the proper medical report with all of the essential elements in place; one’s statement of disability which addresses the issues of concern to OPM; any legal arguments and invocation of precedent-setting arguments, etc.).

Process gets us there; substance is the “that” which gets there.  If there is no “that”, it will be no use for the “there”; and, conversely, if it never gets there, it will not make a difference.  Ultimately, however, while both are of importance, it is the substance of the case which makes the difference, and the focus should be upon that substance before one’s attention is placed upon the vehicle of delivery.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Substance and the Spaces in Between

The philosophical conundrum involving the ability to distinguish between dreams and reality, rests upon a fundamental confusion on the part of the thinker:  one would not be able to discuss the concept of dreams, unless there is first a presumption about reality.

The fact that we can discuss whether or not X is a dream, is precisely because there is already a pretext of a reality.  Similarly, in almost every other area of conceptual discussions:  appearance versus reality; essence versus the peripheral; and multiple other instances.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is important to stick to the “substance” of one’s claim, lest the verbiage and the spaces in between detract and confuse the Case Worker at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Issues which lead one away from the essence of a Federal Disability Retirement application, such as anger at a supervisor; a rant against the agency; undue focus upon the hostile environment created by the agency; all of these can seem as real as the reality of a dream; but however real a dream may appear, one awakens, and the reality of the real world suddenly forces itself upon us.

In a narrative telling of one’s disability and its impact upon one’s life, it is not the “spaces in between” which tell the story; it is the story itself.  Thus, all roads should lead back to the essence of one’s narrative:  the medical condition, and how that condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: A Semantic Battle?

One may wonder, in any process of the stage of preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, as to whether an approval is based merely on a “semantic” battle with the Office of Personnel Management.  

Inasmuch as a submission of a Federal Disability Retirement application to the Office of Personnel Management is a “paper submission” (yes, I know, we are quickly moving towards an age of paperless technology, but you know what is meant by the term), and no actual presentation or contact will be made with the personnel at OPM (unless it goes to a Hearing before an Administrative Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board); as such, the query is sometimes posed as to whether it is merely a semantic battle.  

In the days of Plato and Aristotle, “lawyers” were called “sophists” or “rhetoriticians” — thus, the modern terms of “sophisticated” or “sophistry”, and “rhetoric” or “rhetorical”.  Either or both of the terms imply a negative connotation, that through semantic sleight of hand, one can be fooled into being persuaded to adopt a certain viewpoint or opinion.  

While it may be true to a certain and limited extent that obtaining Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS may involve some semantic quibbling, the underlying substantive basis in granting or denying a Federal Disability Retirement application, either under FERS or CSRS, continues to remain in “the law” — based upon statutory and regulatory criteria, upon legal opinions from cases decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  

While “how X is said” may have some persuasive effect, it is ultimately still “what is said” that retains the most powerful impact.  Substance over appearance still wins the day — the identical philosophical concerns of Plato and Aristotle continues to remain true today.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire