Federal Disability Retirement Application: Making Innuendoes

OPM is always looking for a motive.  It is like they are criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, trying to always find some nefarious reasons as to why a Federal or Postal employee is filing a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Take, for example, one recent case which comes to mind: An individual was filing for Federal Disability Retirement application.  The Applicant’s spouse traveled a lot, and so the applicant had to switch doctors often.  The applicant had his/her brother oversee the medical treatment because of the lack of continuity in medical care.  When it came time to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, the brother wrote the medical report.

The case went before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and, within the Agency File were a series of emails sent between OPM Medical Specialists questioning whether this was a “fraud” case and expressing suspicions over why the applicant’s “brother” would be writing a medical report, etc.  At the Hearing of the case, of course, the brother — a medical doctor of longstanding stature — testified up front and bluntly: Yes, I am the brother of X, and I oversee the treatment regimens because of the lack of continuity of care, etc.  Factual, straightforward, nothing to hide.  But not for OPM, who is always looking for nefarious motivations and making innuendoes even though there is no basis for it.

Contact an OPM Disability attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and counter the suspicious and unfounded innuendoes which OPM is apt to make — even in those cases where there is a simple and straightforward explanation, if only OPM would listen.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability

Preparing an effective SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability, is a daunting task.  The questions are tricky, the space within which to answer them is restrictive, and one wonders whether too much information is better than too little, and furthermore, how does one determine the extent of detail necessary, etc.  What to exclude in an OPM Disability Retirement application is often just as important as its opposite: What to include.

While most mistakes are correctible, the one mistake which cannot be amended, modified or restructured, is to put blinders on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management once they have seen something.  Thus, it is important to be able to objectively make determinations on importance, significance, relevance and necessary material.  Importance: That which is essential in proving one’s case.  Significance: If it is important, it is normally significant; if it is significant, it may not necessarily be important.  Relevance: The superfluous should be excluded.  And necessary: That which meets the legal criteria.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law — for, that may be the first step in the proper preparation of an SF 3112A Applicant’s Statement of Disability.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Benefits: The Unique Writer

These days, writers are plentiful; more and more people are publishing, and while “self-publishing” has become more acceptable, even the quantity of people writing books, novels, narratives, biographies, autobiographical works, self-help books and allegedly adventuresome travelogues portending to unique experiences has exponentially exploded in our times.

Decades ago, there were only a handful of writers, and only the top-notch and exceptional ones actually got published.  Now, it seems that anyone and everyone who can articulate a string of three or more words — a noun, an adjective and a verb combined — can get published.  But we all know that in some desolate town in the Midwest there remains a warehouse where books unsold and unbought remain in molded stacks upon forgotten pallets where once-vaunted “bestsellers” became price-reduced, then slashed, then almost given away for free — until it became clear that no one was interested and even less people were persuaded of their merit.

Then, every now and again, the “unique writer” comes along, and we are again apprised of extraordinary talent and impressed with his or her articulateness, insightfulness and provocative profundity.

The unique writer is the one who is able to combine multiple characteristics: articulation with clarity; the capacity to simplify the complex; to convey clear and concise imagery; to hold the interest of the reader despite descriptions of the mundane; to not come off sounding pretentious and arrogant; and to remain anonymous behind a facade of competence — like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain — and, above all else, to show an interest in all things about life, living and the human experience.  In other words, to always hold a childlike quality of curiosity through the vast aggregate of verbiage expounded.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that filing for FERS Disability Retirement becomes a necessity, the first recognition to observe is that a Federal Employee Disability Retirement application is a “paper presentation” to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Make sure that, however you approach your case, you are able to convey properly, effectively and with forceful persuasiveness your case, your condition and your plight in a manner that will result in an approval, and consult with a Federal Disability Retirement Attorney who is somewhat like that “unique writer” who can articulate and convey your conditions effectively.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire 
OPM Disability Retirement Lawyer

 

Attorney Representation for OPM Disability Claims: Foundations

Foundations are important to every sound endeavor — or is such a statement a mere tautology of sorts, as “soundness” must by necessity involve a proper foundation, and foundations are by definition the basis of soundness?

We all recognize that, and expect that it is an universal principle; otherwise, we would stand over the constructio1n of every building, house or warehouse we entered, scour the blueprints and interrogate every worker having anything to do with the project before entering its premises.

That being the case, why do we so often disregard that principle when formulating a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset?

Think about it: What is the “foundation” of a Federal Disability Retirement case?  Yes — it is the “disability”; otherwise, without it, there is no “case” to file.  And how is a “medical disability” proven to exist, and more importantly, proven to have a “nexus” with the Federal employee’s or Postal worker’s job?

And, yet, most Federal and Postal employees formulating and preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application simply drop off the SF 3112C (the Physician’s Statement Form), and expect that the medical doctor, the psychologist, the therapist or the chiropractor will follow the minutiae of the instructions on SF 3112C, and then submit it along with the rest of the application and forms without nary a glance at the content and substance of the submission.

Clear, concise and perfected guidance provided to the physician or other medical professionals establishes a strong foundation for every OPM Disability Retirement application, and if you — the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker — have consulted with any attorney who does not state with a straightforward “yes” as to providing that sort of guidance and direction in formulating and establishing the very foundation of a Federal Disability Retirement application, you may want to reconsider who is advising you, who is providing counsel to you, and who is helping you formulate the foundations necessary for an effective FERS Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Things not likely to happen

It is not likely that tomorrow morning you will wake up and find that aliens have taken over the earth (although, if one were to read various supermarket tabloids, that has already occurred many times over, both while asleep and awake); it is not likely that you will win the lottery with that last dollar spent on running a random set of numbers (though millions each day shell out astronomical sums in the aggregate with dreams – and sometimes actual plans reflected upon – of what one will do “when” the improbable event will happen); and it is not likely that the email received the other day from some banker in Burkina Faso who wants a “trusted friend” to allow for a transfer of a cool $100 million and would allow you to keep half of it just because you happen to be the only person in the universe who has a bank account and can keep a secret, will actually honor such a request.

Nevertheless, people actually consider such fantasies, and to the detriment of those who do so with serious intent, harm themselves either by delaying what could be done, setting aside the reality of what needs to be accomplished, and turning over valuable time to endeavors not likely to happen.

Often, and unfortunately, medical conditions have that same characteristic – of things not likely to happen.  It begins by happening – of a medical condition that should not have been, or is seen to be “unfairly” targeting a particular individual, and a period of disbelief ensues where the question is, “Why me?  Why not the other guy, instead?”  Then, once the phase of acceptance comes about, one begins to adapt, compromise the levels of acceptability and quality of life, and modification of expectations surely follows soon thereafter.  Then, one hopes, prays, angrily shouts to the heavens or otherwise with quiet resignation begins to ruminate – yes, the medical condition may be unfair, but so is the lot of life we all live.

And the principle of things not likely to happen applies to Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who need to prepare, formulate and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, as well, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.  For, the things not likely to happen includes: The medical condition will just go away; the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service will just let things slide and be very understanding; the Federal agency and the U.S. Postal Service will actually accommodate your medical condition; the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal service will find you another job at the same pay or grade; the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal service will grant SL, AL or LWOP in unlimited amounts so that you can attend to your illness or medical condition; and the Federal agency or U.S. Postal Service will show empathy, sympathy and understanding and make you feel “welcomed” while you endure one of the most difficult periods of your life.  Not.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

 

OPM Medical Retirement: The Categorical Imperative

It is, of course, the foundation of Kant’s moral philosophy; of the unconditional call to act in a certain way, accepted and mandated precisely because there is no room for question.  But that life were so easy; automatons would simply act in mechanistic ways, driven by moral certitude; free will could be determined by the comforting thought that universal codes of conduct shall always confine and direct.  And bureaucracies would always make decisions within a framework of computational algorithms.

But Federal Disability Retirement is not a matter of a diagnosis; unlike Social Security Disability, which does contain a semblance of categorical imperatives when it comes to certain medical conditions, the preponderance of the proof needed in becoming eligible for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is threefold: First, the minimum number of years under FERS (18 months of creditable Federal Service) or CSRS (5 years, which is presumably already met by everyone in that retirement system); Second, a medical condition which came into existence during the time of Federal Service (with some arguable exceptions within one (1) year of being separated from Federal Service); and Third, a nexus of relevant impact between one’s medical condition and the essential elements of one’s positional duties one performs for the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service.

It is this third step in the process which effectively compels one to step outside of the identification of Federal Disability Retirement laws as containing an element of the categorical imperative; for, in the end, it is not simply an evaluation of “which category” one falls into, but rather, how significant and persuasive is the bridge built upon between the two primary land masses:  one’s medical condition (land mass #1) and the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job (land mass #2).

That metaphorical “bridge” must be constructed with care, clarity, and concrete argumentation of persuasive force in order to withstand the inspecting scrutiny of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Look upon it as if OPM is walking through the construction site with a hard hat, pen in hand and taking notes furiously in attempting to discover deficiencies in the qualification standards imposed.  Jumping up and down and screaming at the inspector that the bridge fits into a pre-defined category will not suffice; instead, the categorical imperative must be argued for by pointing to the medical evidence, the law, and the connective tissues which form the effective and persuasive confluence of all of the elements which comprise the ultimate imperative of life:  that of a methodology of argumentation that one is “right”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire