Postal & Federal Disability Retirement: Sufficiency

Sufficiency is the area of opinion and dispute and reaches just beyond the more certain standard of necessity.  X may be necessary , but is it sufficient?

In a basketball game, it may be necessary to play defense, but is it sufficient?  For, if you prevent the opposing team from scoring, but your own team fails to score any points, you may have satisfied one necessary aspect of the game but simultaneously have failed to sufficiently satisfy another, integral aspect — that of offensive scoring of points.

Similarly, in a legal case, while you may meet the necessary formal requirements to win a case, the question remains open as to the sufficiency of the evidence to persuade a jury as to the size of a compensatory award, or whether it was persuasive enough to cast sufficient doubt in the jury’s mind.

Necessity thus becomes the minimal satisfaction whereas sufficiency is the battleground where leeway is given as to whether the quality or quantity satisfies the extent beyond the minimum criteria met.

In a Federal Disability Retirement case under the FERS system, this is the area where the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will focus upon in denying a FERS Disability Retirement case.  They will make such generalized statements as, “While we do not dispute the existence of your health conditions, there was insufficient documentation to establish that you are disabled from performing the essential elements of your position.”

How does one rebut OPM’s argument from insufficiency?  Is it a qualitative or quantitative insufficiency?

That is the question and area of law where it becomes an art form more than a science, and only experience and years of knowledge can discern the underlying requirement needed.  There is no one “right” answer.  Sometimes, faxing to OPM a voluminous amount of treatment records is the only way to meet the “sufficiency” test, but more often than not, it is the quality of a medical report prepared by the treating doctor which is the only means of satisfying the sufficiency criteria.

As with all things in life, areas of dispute rarely have a single answer, precisely because the very nature of disputation involves issues that reach just beyond the point of certitude.

Thus, in responding to the question of sufficiency, you may want to contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and who has the experience and background in addressing the issues of sufficiency beyond mere necessity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: The Focus of Things

Paintings, photographs, artwork of any kind — the author, artist, poet or photographer often wants you to focus upon certain things.  The background, the context, the foreground left unfocused; or, of a certain object, person, entity or subject which is the primary point of the display before you — was it deliberately intended, or was it an accident?

Sometimes, by mistake, an accidental capture of an unintended incident or subject which was not originally the focus of things to become prominent, is suddenly recognized as being more important or relevant than first thought.  But that is a rarity.  The focus of things is normally an intended act.

Thus, in a Federal OPM Disability Retirement case, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will deliberately focus upon certain issues.  Why is that?  To try and defeat and deny a FERS Disability Retirement application based upon what they believe is the “winning” issue for them.

From the Applicant’s perspective and viewpoint, the focus is often quite different.  And, of course, there is a difference in focus between being a “patient” of a medical condition trying to get better, and being an applicant for a FERS Disability Retirement annuity.

It is, in the end, the focus of things which can make a difference, and the reason why you need a lawyer in order to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits is precisely because the focus of things is quite different — as in, an advocate for your Federal Disability Retirement application can make the difference between a focused approach and an unfocused one.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
FERS Disability Attorney

 

FERS Medical Retirement for Mental or Physical Incapacity: The Path Forward

In some ways, the concept itself is redundant.  For, the phrase implies an alternative issue — the path backwards, or sideways, or the metaphorical “fork in the road” of which we must choose, etc.  But those pathways have already been traveled, considered, investigated, ventured upon — and all have been already found to be the “wrong” direction.

Forward — it is the only remaining path, and the only issue left to consider is how to forge it and in what direction to take.  There is no “going back”; and trying to take the circuitous route instead of a direct assault forward will only delay matters and perhaps make things worse.  Forward is the path, and the path forward is the way to go.  Going back is merely to go over an already-worn and tiring direction and will ultimately get you nowhere except to become stuck in the past.

We must, instead, take our circumstances as they are, assess the damage already done, then begin to cut through the bramble bushes and forge a new pathway forward into the future.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the path forward is to prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS and move forward in presenting it to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for an approval.

In doing so, it is advisable to consult with an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Another “Get Through” Day

We all have them.  They are the days when the body is transformed into a haggard display of human misery; where every urge to just crawl back into bed is resisted with a hollow groan; and when nothing positive can be squeezed from a life which is difficult, anyway.  Perhaps it is some low-pressure system that has moved in and dampened our spirits; or some unidentifiable “bug” that has attacked our system; or just a “bad hair day”, as we euphemistically refer to.

On such days, it is good to recognize that it is merely a day in which we must “get through” and, at the end of the day, sleep it off, shake our heads and declare, “Boy, that was rough, but I was able to get through the day”.  Perhaps productivity on such a day is not at its height; or the energy level is a bit off; or the ability to focus or concentrate is off kilter, and we just cannot seem to be in sync with the world at large.  Whatever the reasons, we all have days like that.

It is when those isolated days become a string of days, or an aggregate of months, and then into a compendium of years — that is when a Federal or Postal employee must consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  We all have a “Get through the day” days; but when a medical condition becomes chronic and deteriorating, and when those rare “get through days” become commonplace, then it is time to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law in order to make the commonplace back into an event of isolated rarity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: Pure fun

Are we the only species who does that?  Do other species engage in the sheer pleasure of its purity, without regard to any instructional end or substantive gain resulting therefrom?

Of course, anthropomorphism often presides when issues of interpretive psychology is involved; and thus do we say when the lioness and her cubs are engaging in playful wrestling, that she is “teaching” them how to interact within acceptable boundaries; or when dogs race around with abandonment, that they are letting go their pent-up energy, etc.

Whether with purposive resolve or not, the purity of engaging in pleasurable activities is a necessary component of life; it is for those pleasurable moments, however few, far-between and of whatever nature, for which the remainder of human drudgery becomes worthwhile to endure.  The ratio between “work” and “pleasure” may be different for each individual — i.e., for some, it may be an acceptable threshold to maintain a balance between 80% work and 20% pleasure; or, perhaps, of 2% versus 98%, or thereabouts.

When the recipe bifurcating the two goes askew — where leisurely activities without seemingly purposive intent outweighs one over the other, we then begin to suspect and allege hedonism, wastefulness and wanton loss of self-worth.  Why is that?  Can one not have pure fun each and every day, for every waking moment, without being looked down upon with judgmental eyes of damning disdain?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the question of a ratio between “work” and “pleasure” has already been resolved and answered: For, with a medical condition, there is no acceptable level of balance between the two.

Medical conditions by their very definition conflate and confuse the two; no longer is it possible to escape the vicious cycle of work-and-no-pleasure, precisely because the pain of the medical condition disrupts both.

When that threshold of balance between work and leisure becomes so out-of-whack that life’s pleasurable moments, however small and limited, can no longer be enjoyed, then it is time to prepare, formulate and file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS, so that the ratio between work and play can be regained to the extent that “pure fun” can attain its semblance of purity, and where “fun” can again be enjoyed without the interruption of life’s drudgery.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Legal Representation for OPM Disability Claims: The stand-around guy

It is pointed out in contrast to the other finger pointed towards another — not the “stand up” guy (or girl), but the “stand-around” guy (or girl).   The former refers to a person who can be trusted at all times, is straightforward when asked about his or her opinions on a matter, and is generally known as an individual of “good character”.  By contrast, the latter describes a person who is unsure of himself; who loiters because he cannot decide what his purpose is for being anywhere; and is generally picked last, or next to last, when teams are chosen for a pick-up game of basketball or touch football.

It refers to a person who is the “extra” and the odd-man out where, on dinner dates of foursomes or six-somes or whatever-somes, arrives alone and makes it into an awkward three-some, five-some or other-some with an odd number.  She is the little sister tag-along, the younger brother pop-up character and the whac-a-mole that keeps reappearing no matter how many hints are given that his or her company is no longer needed, is undesired or otherwise disinvited; but to be direct and pointed to the stand-around guy would be cruelty in its worst form, as he or she doesn’t quite understand or would rather be subjected to the indignities of being the butt of all jokes rather than to be sent off into the lonely despair of self-confinement and isolation lost upon an island of one’s own thoughts.

He is the person who arrives and never knows where to stand; the last one to be seated, and only if their is an available chair vacated; and yet, the last one to leave despite the desertion of a party where he was unnoticed, never talked to nor engaged and included in conversations where circles and semi-circles of people gathered but no one noticed.

The stand-around guy is the “extra” on a movie-set hoping to get noticed, yet too fearful of such notoriety; and as the activity of the main set continues to focus upon the stars and central figures upon the stage which we call “life”, he or she shuffles about for years and extending into decades, unknowingly contributing to the drama of civilization’s inertness where kindness is rarely shown, humanity is concealed from history, and the cruelty to life’s misery keeps bubbling to the surface like a volcanic eruption percolating unnoticed beneath the seething surface of hidden appearances.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, where the medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, does it often seem like the rest of the Federal Agency or the Postal Service is beginning to treat you like the “stand-around guy”?

Is it recognized and subtly acknowledged that you are no longer part of that “mission”, and because of your extensive leave-usage or LWOP excessiveness, or merely because you asserted your rights under FMLA, that now relegated into that status of persona non grata, the leper who was mistakenly given a pass out of the leper colony, or like the individual who says things embarrassingly in crowds of socialites who snub their noses at those who feign to be a part of the pseudo-aristocracy?

If you are beginning to be treated like that stand-around guy, it is likely time to begin to prepare, formulate and file an effective 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 — lest the stand-around guy becomes the invisible man whose memory is quickly extinguished because of a removal action that came suddenly and unexpectedly from the upper echelons of powers-that-be, who decided to rid the Agency or the Postal Service of that stand-around guy whose presence was no longer needed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Season’s end

The cyclical nature of the seasons provides for comfort in its monotony of regularity; we are subject to nature more than we realize, and the onset of the next season means the end of one, the beginning of another and the endless cycle of repetitive regularity.

That concept, in and of itself, is a strange one, is it not?  Of “repetitive regularity”; for, can “regularity” encompass a series of elements without repetition?  And, is not repetition itself the foundation of regularity?  Is there a distinction with a difference to be made?

If a person goes to the same coffee shop every day, at the same hour, and orders the same cup of coffee each and every day of his life, we would describe that person as being a “regular”.  Further, we might describe what he does as “repetitive”, and thus would say of him: “He engages in an act of repetitive regularity”.

That perspective would be a fairly accurate one from an objective, outsider’s viewpoint.  But what about from the subjective perspective – from the person himself who goes to that same coffee shop each and every day?  He might say: “No, it is not repetitive, because each cup of coffee, to me, is a brand new one, just as each day I wake up is a new day; and, besides, I might wake up one day and go to a different coffee shop, and then you would not consider me to be a ‘regular’.”

Would such a statement be accurate?  Would it be truthful?  And what about the short time-frame within which we assign so quickly the label of “regular”?  From an omniscient viewpoint, would doing X for a month, a year – or even a decade – properly constitute “regularity”, when eternity is the standard by which it is being judged?

A season’s end and the next one’s beginning can certainly be considered as repetitive regularity; for, that is often what we rely upon as a security of comfort, in the very knowing of the next one coming. That is the insidious impact of a medical condition, is it not?  That it creates uncertainty, and suddenly repetitive regularity is no longer guaranteed, as if the season’s end may be its last.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job duties, the medical condition itself may be likened to the season’s end.

Fortunately, there is the benefit of Federal Disability Retirement, however, and that may, as well, be likened to the repetitive regularity of a season’s end – only, it is the onset of the “next season”, and that is some comfort upon which to take refuge, like the flock of geese that fly south for the warmer climate of tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement under FERS & CSRS: Where we are

Wherever we are, we believe that is where the focal point of life resides.  Yes, it is a truism that the wider the travels, the greater recognition that one’s life is relatively insignificant, and that there are others in distant places where greater importance and relevance is objectively established.

But the subjective, human perspective cannot ultimately abandon the compass of where we are; for, it is the center of the compass itself that controls the direction of the gravitational pull, and while the North Pole may be where the forces reside (including Santa, all of his elves and helpers, and presumably Rudolph and the offspring), the perspective of where the arrow points remains constant:  It is the I, where I am and what circumstances impact me (in whatever form the personal pronoun is enunciated).

Is it an inevitable perspective – this egoism of the subjective “I” from whence the world is viewed, around which swirls the universe that rotates, churns and erupts in unanticipated transcendentalism encompassing the universal karma denoting an insignificant place in the warped historicity of mankind?  Or, is it possible to have been brought up in a community where there is no word within the language game of the collective peoples that points back towards one’s self?

Thus, the “what if” game:  What if there is no personal pronoun?  What if the perspective embraces only some other, such that each views the importance of the other and the relative irrelevance of the one who perceives the other, such that there is no one but the ego in a reflection of a mirror pointing to someone else – would that make a difference, such that there would therefore be no personal possessiveness, neither in grammar nor in envious jealousies of owning that which is everyone else’s?  Can a person exist without being erased and stamped out, in a society where collectivism is constant and self-realization is an alien concept unable to be comprehended?

But that is not so; here, in modernity, there is but the subjective “I”, the royalty of self, and the self-importance of the fanfare where each and every one of us seeks and relishes the quarter hour of fame, now transformed into reality television shows and Selfies on an extension pole, or by min-drones hovering with a camera taking aim at every movement of our selfish worth.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal worker who must prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, be cautious in determining “where” one “is” – for, an effective Federal Disability Retirement application can quickly become consumed by the subjective “I” in the narrative delineated in the Applicant’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A).

To be an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, there must by necessity contain and retain a certain sense of objectivity, tempered by the medical documentation and evidentiary compilation to be submitted.  Yes, yes – where we are is important in life, but remember always that where we are is only relevant from the vantage point of where we want to be tomorrow, and the day after that.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Employment: The Indeterminate Deterioration

Some events come with it a specific date, and even a time; others, within a span of identified moments and blocks of weeks, sometimes months; the rest, undetermined, unspecified, like the lost soul who wanders the traversing echoes of eternal reverberations left to the sifting cleansing of a foaming ocean washing and lapping, ever repeating the comforting sounds of surf and salt strolling like the footprints gone in the sands of countless castles disappeared.  But that medical conditions would conform to the science which attempts to treat, and approach one with technical precision and certitude.

When did you first notice the symptoms, the kindly doctor asks, as you scratch your head and stutter forth an incomprehensible gibberish of a response.  A similar question is posed on SF 3112A, concerning the “date” (approximate) the Federal or Postal employee became disabled from one’s position.  How does one answer such a question?  Fortunately, it asks not for a day or time, but merely the month and year, and to that extent we can be thankful for its inherent foresight.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who attempt to answer this question without much thought or reflection, be forewarned and with a hint of suspicion; trap doors abound everywhere, and while one may overstate issues like the paranoid cousin who points a telescope not at the moon and stars, but directly at the next-door neighbor’s bedroom window, it is well to consider carefully the answer to be given.

The context of intermingling meanings:  Was it during one’s tenure as a Federal or Postal employee (for those separated but contemplating filing within 1 year of being separated from Federal Service)?  Will it prompt the question, Does the medical condition last for a minimum of 12 months, including the time encapsulating the prognosis of the doctor?  Does it coincide with any event or issue arising at work?  Does the date identified precede any adverse action promulgated by the agency or the U.S. Postal Service?  Truth is always the guide for integrity in all cases, but the reality of a medical condition is that time is often discovered on a spectrum, where chronicity and deterioration spans over many months, and often years.

To pinpoint is to be precise; but where deterioration is progressive and indeterminate, the fading sounds of an unspecified echo which bounces from cave walls to the expansive skies beyond the realm of certainty, the date recognized may be one which floats and fades like the dust of angels left as a residue of virtue.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Early Medical Retirement for Federal and Postal Employees: Like the Wind-Up Toys of Childhood Yore

They were innovative creations, precursors of the digital age and battery-powered contraptions.  The disadvantage, of course, was in the limitations imposed by the length of the coils allowing for winding, releasing, then causing the movement; and so the appearance of independent animation lasted merely for the duration of the internal mechanisms and the capacity allowed by delimited space, time and mechanical release.  Like the belief in the invisible thread gently pulled by gods and angels designated to protect, the mechanism of innovation in propelling wind-up toys lasted in limited form.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who feel as if they are mere pawns and wind-up toys, the sense of limitation is self-imposed through continuing in an environment which fails to foster or  remain intrigued.  The child who spent hours winding up the fascination of one’s imagination, watched the toy engage in its repetitive movements, but never lost the focus and concentration and ongoing relishing of delight in a simple contraption, is like the agency who once catered with loyalty and encouragement to the needs of the Federal or Postal employee.  But the medical condition which begins to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing all of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, or requires greater time and effort, is like the reaction of that same child who loses interest because of the broken toy which fails to provide the pleasurable interests engendered and fails to give thought of repair or redemption, but merely of replacement.

When the commonality of childhood dismay and adulthood crisis converge as parallel universes of clashing calamities, then it is time to consider preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Filing for FERS or CSRS disability benefits, for the Federal or Postal employee, is a time of reckoning; of understanding what one’s medical condition has portended; how it has impacted one’s place in the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service; and where events and circumstances have lead one to.  And the time to file for Federal and Postal Disability Retirement benefits is not when the coils of the wind-up toy gives out, but long before, when the fascination of childhood innocence still tickles the glory of inventive interest in the world around, lest the spark of humanity be stamped out forever like the brokenness experienced with the stoppage of inner workings of the wind-up toy of childhood yore.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire