Federal Medical Retirement Law: The Dogmatist

It is easy to fall into being one; and, one need not be overtly (or overly) religious in order to be considered as such.  Ultimately, it is not the opinion held or the inability to see different perspectives or “angles” on a matter; rather, it is the attitude which defines the dogmatist — the arrogance; the refusal to consider other viewpoints; the intransigence of thought.

Now, that is not to say that being “dogmatic” is always a negative thing; for, there are instances in life where “sticking to one’s principles” is a good and necessary thing.  Sometimes, when the winds of change and the malleability of ethical or moral convictions seem to reactively alter as quickly as the weather, it is of some comfort to find a dogmatist in our midst.  But context and content combined, always matter; and it is the “when” as much as the “what” which determines whether being a dogmatist is justified.

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 duties, being a dogmatist may be a detriment.  Never think that your own case is a “slam dunk”; for, to be unequivocally adamant about the strength of your disability case is often because the one who suffers from a disabling medical condition cannot think otherwise — in other words, like a dogmatist would think.

Consider, instead, contacting a Federal Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law in order to get a more balanced view of your case, and leave your dogmatic views on more pressing moral or ethical issues which may necessitate the strength of your convictions in order to retain the antiquity of intransigent thoughts.

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 Employees Retirement System (FERS) Disability Law: Life’s Frenetic Pace

Is it any more than in times past?  Without an actual reference point, lacking in contrast to historical contexts, unfounded by knowledge no longer available — is the frenetic pace by which we live any different from previous eras?

Certainly, in times prior to the industrial revolution, before refrigeration was invented, technology as part of our accepted daily lives — the focus was more upon having food sufficient to provide for our daily needs.  In the modern era, the source of food is rarely a problem; rather, if it is a problem, the concern is one of how to afford it.

Access is different from availability.  Technology itself, of course, is always touted as time-savers; that by downloading this “App” or purchasing that gadget, you’ll be left with greater time spent in lazy leisures of accommodated peace and prosperity.  Life’s frenetic pace in modernity, of course, has a price — and that price is often the cost of one’s health because of the stress we are under.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows for continuation at the frenetic pace by which we live, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS may be the best option to take.

Contact a Federal Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and begin the process of paring down the frenetic pace of life.

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.

 

OPM Medical Retirement Benefits: Stoic Impassivity

Times are changing.  This is not a new phenomena — for, times always change.  Is it for the better?  Are we advancing linearly, or is history merely repeating itself?

The age of stoicism — that influence by Epictetus of recognizing Fate, Destiny, the things we have influence over and those things we do not — is replaced with this modern age of seeking happiness by controlling our feelings.  The “rational” part of our soul is no longer paramount; it is the “appetitive” side of our nature (borrowing from Plato and Aristotle’s distinctions) which we now allow to control the various aspects of our lives.

“Stoic impassivity” was once the norm — of the British “stiff upper lip” or the American “rugged individualism”, which are replaced with the “touchy-feely” normative imposition of society’s standards where rerouting one’s feelings may lead to greater happiness.  Likely, the pendulum swing from one extreme to the other will settle somewhere in the middle, where both the rational side of a human being and the emotional aspect are both recognized as equally part of Man’s nature.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have worked through their medical conditions — stoic impassivity may actually work against you in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application.

If you have “hidden” your medical conditions and continue to have great performance reviews, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will likely question the validity of your Federal Disability Retirement application by saying, “Well, your Agency says you’re doing such a fine job — where is the evidence that shows that you cannot do your job anymore?”

To counter this, contact an OPM Lawyer who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law and map out a course of action which will be effective in preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application which overcomes that stoic impassivity you have endured with your ongoing medical conditions.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Disability Retirement under Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS): Continent of the Arbitrary

The metaphor encompasses an image of expansiveness; for, while a city, a town, and even a country can trigger an image which we can conceptually grasp, a “continent” — of Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America, Australia and Antarctica — simply boggles the mind and goes beyond our ability to put our arms around it.

And “arbitrariness”?  Life is so arbitrary that it can only be conceptually linked to the image of a continent.  Where we were born; in what state of health we came into being; who we met; how we became who we are — is it all by chance, by circumstance; or, does fate and predestination by heavenly influence play any part of it?

“What fates impose, that men must needs abide; it boots not to resist both wind and tide” — Henry VI, Part 3, Act IV, Scene 4.

The arbitrariness of life is, indeed, a continent of despair, and medical conditions appear as merely another facet of arbitrary causes without reason — why does it hit some people at certain ages and not others; and in the end, where is the fairness of it all within this vast universe?

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 your Federal or Postal job, consider contacting a Federal Lawyer to initiate the complex administrative process of Federal Disability Retirement.

For, while your circumstances may be the result of a continent of the arbitrary, your obtaining of Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS need not be, and having a legal expert on your side may greatly enhance your chances of success and minimize the arbitrary nature of the bureaucratic process.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

FERS Disability Retirement from OPM: Failure of Proof

What does it mean to “fail to prove” something?  Who, in the end, determines such a “failure”?

A benefit which is part of being a Federal or Postal employee — OPM Disability Retirement under the FERS system — must of course include “proof” that the Federal employee or Postal worker is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job; but what constitutes failure in meeting that burden of proof?

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, of course, is the “gatekeeper” at the Initial Stage of the Federal Disability Retirement process, as well as the Second, Reconsideration Stage of the process.  The “safety” mechanism is that, if OPM denies the application for Federal Disability Retirement at both the First Stage as well as the Second, Reconsideration Stage, a Federal Disability Retirement applicant can file an appeal with the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board — taking it out of the hands of OPM and placing it before an administrative judge for an administrative, telephonic hearing.

For, OPM’s methodology of “proving” that there has been a “failure of proof” is by selectively choosing everything undermining a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement case, then proceeding to make conclusions based upon those selectively chosen bases and ignoring everything else.  It is, in the end, not a failure of proof that defeats an OPM Medical Retirement submission, but more often than not, a baseless claim by OPM that proof by a preponderance of the evidence has not been met.

To counter this, contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and meet the baseless assertion of a failure of proof by proving that the failure was a failure of proper adjudication.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement from the OPM: Careful Planning

Is there any other type?  Do we ever plan, but do it carelessly?  Or, is it a redundancy to ascribe any planning as being “careful”?  Another question, of course, is the manner in which we determine the basis of such planning; i.e., is it only a retrospective judgment that is made after the fact?  In other words, do we ascribe the designated title of “careful planning” only after things have gone smoothly, and that of “careless planning” when things have not?

When the boss pats you on the shoulder and says, “Good job” and you turn and smugly respond, “Well, it’s just a matter of careful planning,” is such a response appropriate only because things had turned well?  And when it does not, do you just say: “Well, despite careful planning, there were some unforeseen circumstances that arose and all we can do is to counter them as best we can”?

There is, of course, such an animal as “careless planning” — where one has engaged in the motions of planning a future course of events, but has not taken the time to think it through, plan alternative avenues for “handling a potential conflict”, or otherwise did not meticulously prepare for the upsides and downsides of potential difficulties.  And that is the key, isn’t it — to consider the options, take into account the possibilities, and to plan accordingly?

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 position, careful planning in the preparation, formulation and submission of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application is a “must”.

We all engage in retrospective confirmation of our actions, and the single telling factor of careful planning in a Federal Disability Retirement application is when you receive an “approval” from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Of course, when dealing with a Federal bureaucracy, a denial does not necessarily mean that careful planning was not engaged in, but merely that further planning and careful consideration must be given in order to battle with, and prevail, against OPM.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin to formulate the plans which will be most effective in obtaining your disability retirement benefits from OPM.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement under FERS: A Thousand Cuts

It is the classic question which allegedly reveals something about a person’s inner psyche: Of whether you would rather die from a thousand cuts, or quickly and instantaneously?  Of course, the third option is never allowed within the hypothetical, because to include it would defeat the whole purpose of the question: Of continuing to live, or even of a “middle” ground, where it is not quite a thousand cuts and not nearly immediately.

But implicit in the “thousand cuts” alternative contains the hope of surviving, anyway, doesn’t it?  For, presumably to inflict a thousand slashes implies that it would take a considerable amount of time, as well as agony, torturous pain and unimaginable cruelty imposed; but it is time of which we seek in order to have any chance of survival, isn’t it?

Time is what we seek; that tomorrow may be different from today; that a future beyond the apparent corner may be a destiny yet unknown; that, without tomorrow, there would be no flame of hope, and it is that flame — however weak, flickering or susceptible to extinguishment at any moment — that we guard because the looming shadows await to overwhelm and dominate, like the lurking stranger behind the facade patiently awaiting to pounce once the flame dies.

We can endure much, and the time of agony can be withstood so long as there is some hope for tomorrow; and it is when tomorrow offers no hope that then we might ruefully mourn the choices we made in suffering through the thousand cuts.

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 job, the endurance suffered can be liked to the torturous spectacle of being cut a thousand times.  Perhaps Federal Disability Retirement is that very flame of hope that will keep you going.

Consult with a lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and seek that goal of maintaining the flicker; for, without it, the tomorrow we live for may be extinguished by the other alternatives unimagined.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement under FERS: Forgotten Lives

Is it the memory that retains importance, or the fear that erasure leads to irrelevance that motivates us to prevent forgotten lives?  Does imprint upon history — whether in a footnote or an “honorable mention” in the epitaph of an unvisited tombstone — mean so much?  Does a reference in a Wikipedia listing count as a counter to a life lived in anonymity?

Most of us accept that we will not leave behind a greater imprint upon history’s rising trash heap of honorable mentions; and, except for dinner conversations amidst family gatherings, where someone might bring up a story that begins with, “Hey, remember when Uncle X was with us, the time when…” — we are left to memories forever fading and references served only by the ivy that grows over graveyards left unattended.

How important is it to maintain a semblance of relevance in a world where the 15-second timeframe of fame and one’s forever-statement of contribution to society keeps getting shortened because of the need to move on to the next and more titillating cause of excitement?

One wonders whether a person clings to doing something merely in order to avoid erasure from existence from the memories of those engaged.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition impacts the Federal or Postal employee’s ability and capacity to continue working in the chosen field in the Federal or Postal sector of employment, the issue of making a decision to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS is often inextricably tied to the emotional upheaval of forgotten lives.

When one’s purpose and motivation for daily living is so intertwined with one’s career, work and the daily relevance of a mission yet to be accomplished, it is a difficult step to take, to recognize that one’s contribution to society may be coming to an end, resulting in forgotten lives and erasure from relevance.

But always remember that priorities must always be assigned, and the priority of one’s health comes before any fear of an honorable mention in a Wikipedia footnote, and just as there is life after a career with the Federal government, so it is also true that history is replete with the unnamed and unmentioned contributions of forgotten lives forever extinguished.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Medical Retirement from the OPM: Loss of Perfection

Is the human species the only one on earth that holds within it a paradigm of perfection?

That is, of course, the argument used by Medieval Scholastics in arguing for the existence of an omniscient being — that, in order for an imperfect being to possess and have the very idea of perfection, there must by logical necessity exist an objective Being who manifests the characteristics of perfection.

This is a much-simplified version of the Scholastic Philosophers — one such example being St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God, which begins with the rather confusing linguistic pretzel of: God is that than which nothing greater can be thought of….  Such linguistic complexity makes one pause and consider the conceptual conundrum of defining an X which is beyond the thought process within one’s capacity, but that is, indeed, the major premise in the syllogistic proposal.

The minor premise, of course, is the statement posited in an offhand, understated way: That “to exist” is greater than “not to exist” — and how many of us would deny such a self-evident proposal?

And the conclusion that would follow naturally is that, because existence is self-evidently better than not to exist, therefore that than which nothing greater can be thought of must by logical consequence “exist”. Beyond the simple positing of such a syllogism, however, is the problematic follow-up that has beset our society and modernity — of perfection’s damaging residue upon a society which demands nothing less than perfection.  Or, rather, in today’s universe, it is the appearance of perfection that matters, and the destructive effect of such bosh.

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, the loss of the appearance of perfection will mean that the Federal Agency or the Postal Service will begin to (if it hasn’t already) punish, harass and demean; for, one of the greatest sins since Eve’s misdeed and Adam’s deficiency is of being mortal, of showing vulnerability and revealing weakness; in other words, one’s appearance of perfection has been shattered.

That is when preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management becomes a necessity — for, the other syllogism for Federal employees and Postal workers suffering from a medical condition is thus: Imperfection is a reality of life; health conditions are an inevitability for most; Therefore, filing for Federal Disability Retirement is the next logical step.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

FERS Disability Retirement: Nonsense confiscates meaning

It obviates and nullifies it; often, it will make impotent that which once maintained vibrancy and efficacy.  That is where Orwell misconstrued the power of nonsense; for, in his classic novel, 1984, the scene which discussed the production of the newest edition of allowable Newspeak words and the reduction and elimination of certain concepts — he failed to realize that it is the greater dissemination and wide volume of words which undermines meaning, and not the other way around.

By exponentially adding — by quantitative overload — to language, we undermine the precision of language and thereby create a chaos of nonsense; and the result is that nonsense confiscates meaning.  Have you ever come across a person who takes a paragraph to convey the meaning of a single word?

By contrast, when you meet an individual who so succinctly states an idea and, with the sword of a sharp sentence, can slash a page to within a tidbit of profundity, you realize the benefit of brilliance over the darkness of ignorance.  Succinctness, precision, concise conceptual bundles — they are all important in conveying proper meaning; and “meaningfulness” is what persuades, while nonsense confounds and makes a conundrum of that which should be a vehicle of clarity.

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, the Applicant’s Statement of Disability — SF 3112A — is the vehicle by which “meaning” is delivered.

Do not get sidetracked with the nonsense of too much explanation; and an overly abundant profusion of nonsense may in fact harm one’s case.  A balance between the short “bullet-point” approach and a meandering diatribe against one’s agency needs to be pinpointed.  Do not let nonsense confiscate meaning, thereby undermining the ultimate goal of a Federal Disability Retirement application: To obtain an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
OPM Disability Lawyer