FERS & CSRS Disability Retirement from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Consciousness and the Linguistic Divide

Throughout the wide expanse of Western Philosophical debates, the tension of truth has always been the subtle, often unspoken, surreptitious thread underlying the waging war of words.  As the writing of history is left to the victors, so the linguistic divide between truth and falsity belongs to the mastery of words. The modern subtext to the greater debate encapsulates consciousness and whether the wholeness of one’s being can be adequately described in scientific terms comprised of physically-oriented language — i.e., synapses, cells and serotonin levels.

Can one adequately capture the wholeness of a person, and the uniqueness of the individual, by the expungement of non-objective language and transference and translation of reductionism to physically-oriented descriptions?  And what of Ryle’s perennial problem of that “ghost in the machine“?  Of course, Dennett would explain away the issue of consciousness by a series of component divides — of sectional surgeries which, in their individual pieces, would reveal the lack of the greater elements beyond the individual parts.  But in the end, does the adoption of such science-based language adequately present a true picture of man?

On a human level, in every society, the problem is seen in how agencies and organizations view and treat individuals with medical problems.  For Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact one’s ability and capacity to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job, the issue of being “lesser” than coworkers becomes a problem of actions, how we view our fellow man, and the greater linguistic divide which impacts treatment of individuals.  Language is important in capturing the fantasy of fulfillment.  It is the seed of creativity.  Reduction of language and expungement into mere metabolic processes will ultimately dehumanize society, and equate maltreatment with mere surgical precision.

Federal and Postal Workers who confront the issue of daily abuse in the workplace because of a medical condition suffered, recognize how insensitive conglomerates can be.  For the Federal and Postal Worker who has come to a point where one’s agency no longer views him or her in the wholeness of one’s being and the worth of being a productive individual, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, is an option to consider, and to take one’s abilities and capabilities elsewhere to another vocation.

History is replete with man’s capacity to dehumanize; language is the key to expunging the very humanity which society possesses in the treatment of individuals; and in the end, consciousness is the last bastion of unexplained beauty in the greater linguistic divide of social conscience.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Potential Drawback

One of the potential drawbacks in pursuing collateral employment issues concomitantly with a Federal Disability Retirement application is that, as such employment issues are active and clearly in the collective consciousness of the Agency, the Supervisor, and all involved, the issue itself often gets sneaked into a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS via the back door.  

This is not necessarily a negative thing, but can be a potential drawback if the Supervisor insists upon inserting the details of the collateral action in the Supervisor’s Statement.  Whether such insertion and accompaniment with a Federal Disability Retirement application is “proper” or not, is a separate matter.  From the perspective of the applicant who is awaiting a decision from the Office of Personnel Management, it matters not as to the proper actions of the Agency.  What such actions by the rogue supervisor does, is to deflect the focus away from the medical issue, and redirects the reviewing official/representative at OPM that the “reason” for one’s early retirement is not one based upon a medical issue, but rather, is because of stresses or other factors caused by a hostile work environment, harassment issues, etc.  This is normally a proposition which can be easily sidestepped, by arguing to OPM that whether or not such workplace issues have any basis or not, the treating doctor has nevertheless stated X, Y & Z.  However, it can still be problematic, and that is why collateral workplace issues should be avoided, if at all possible.

Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Those Workplace Issues

In preparing a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, there are often multiple collateral issues which arise:  Harassment issues; Unequal Treatment; EEOC issues; Hostile Workplace issues; Discrimination issues; and multiple other issues which may or may not be viable complaints.  Such complaints have their proper place, in the proper forum, within the proper context.  As I have written multiple times previously on this issue — these employment issues should be avoided in the context of preparing for and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application.  

Many of these employment complaints may be viable ones to pursue; some may be pursued concurrently while seeking Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, and will not ultimately defeat or impact such an application (remember that in law, not only can an attorney speak out of three or four sides of his mouth; one is also allowed to make contradictory legal arguments at the same time).  

The point is that such collateral arguments and issues should not be a part of the application itself.  It may be fine to pursue such workplace issues in a separate and different forum — just not in the process of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  If the issue is brought up, the Office of Personnel Management may well use it against you, stating, “Your medical conditions seem to occur as a result of your allegation of the actions of your Supervisor. As such, you suffer merely from situational disability.”  Case denied.  

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire