Postal & Federal Employees Medical Retirement: Insult to Injury

It is a common enough phrase, and most of us know about it, learn it early on and recognize the phrase easily.  If asked where or from whom we first heard the phrase, most of us would scratch our heads and vaguely reference our parents, grandparents, or perhaps a friend of long ago.  The point is that such a phrase is likely so commonplace and universal precisely because it represents a commonplace occurrence.

It happens so frequently that the phrase itself is accepted as representing a regular event in everyone’s life.

We hear the stories often enough: “I was walking along the street and X happened to me.  That was bad enough.  But to add insult to injury, then Y did this-this-and-that to me, as well!”  Or: “I thought it was bad enough that X wouldn’t do Y for me, but to add insult to injury, he then proceeded to do Z.”  Yes, it is the commonplace-ness of it all which is the reason why the phrase itself is learned at such an early age.

Life is like that, isn’t it?  After the newborn first learns those early words or sounds — like “Ma-ma” or “Da-da” — he or she then immediately learns the phrase, “To add insult to injury”.  Well, maybe not those very words, exactly, but something close to them.

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, consult with an OPM Disability Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law before the Federal Agency or Postal Service adds insult to injury.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal & Federal Disability Retirement: Pragmatism

It is that branch of Philosophy which is uniquely American; and the anomaly of the unwanted cousin was clear from the outset: Philosophy by its very nature is theoretical, and most of it dabbling in the discipline of metaphysics, ceding its other branches to theology and science.  Pragmatism, on the other hand, lends to the practical — of reacting to the world in terms of present-day difficulties and problems to be solved; of shunning the theoretical and attending to the basic needs of society.

The contrast and contradiction of a philosophy based upon practical needs as against the backdrop of an academic discipline which embraces the impractical, but rather enjoys its reputation for high-minded principles (i.e., Kant, Hegel, etc.) makes for a Jamesian pragmatism to be the illegitimate cousin of a well-respected family tree.  We are all dreamers by morning’s child; more practical by midday’s youth; and pragmatists upon an adult’s late evening; for the world forces the theoretical to be squeezed, and pragmatism brings out the harsh reality of existence.

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, pragmatism may necessarily dim the dreams of yesteryear: A career in the Federal Government no longer possible, a practical approach must be taken — of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.

Consult with a Federal Disability Retirement lawyer, a specialist who can advise, guide and counsel throughout the process, and begin preparing for the reality of responding to an all too-pragmatic bureaucracy.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Postal & Federal Employee Medical Retirement: How We Respond

It is the stuff of which life teaches us; the lessons learned, the character growth; of how we respond.  Whether it is in response to the Corona Virus, or to a tragedy more singular and personal, the “process” question is important: How do we respond?  Did we respond with foresight, thoughtfulness, calm and collected?  Or do we flail about frantically in a panic, not knowing what we are doing but doing it nevertheless because, to “do something” is thought to be better than to do nothing at all?

As store shelves become emptied and the predatory few of price-gouging increases, it becomes more and more of a free-for-all in a society where anarchy is on the border’s edge between insanity and rational discourse.  Isolation and self-quarantine seem to be the key to containment, in this case, and social media allows for a semblance of ongoing communication and connectedness; but in the end, how we respond as individuals is important to consider.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition is one beyond a deadly virus, but is instead a chronic condition lasting for over 12 months, this time of isolation may be a moment to consider preparing and formulating a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be ultimately filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Contact and consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement and begin the process of the long bureaucratic procedure. That, in the end, is the right way to respond — of how we respond for the long haul.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Medical Retirement for Federal Employees: ‘For’ and ‘to’

Do we ever pick up on the subtleties of language’s intentionality, anymore?  Is there a difference with a distinction between the use of the prepositions ‘for’ as opposed to ‘to’?  And, even if intentionally and with deliberative meaning, one inserts one as opposed to the other, would the person for whom it is intended, or to whom it is addressed, catch the difference, or would he or she merely respond as if there was never any difference at all?

Say the person began with one preposition but stopped mid-sentence and corrected it, inserting the ‘other’; would the correction be noticed at all, and even if it was, would that make a difference?  Say, for instance, a person says to another, “I would like to show my appreciation to you,” as opposed to saying, “I would like to show my appreciation for you.”  Is there a difference?  Is there a subtle intentionality hidden – where the “to” is just slightly less personal than the “for”?

What if the person speaking does not believe in any differences between the two propositions – would that make a difference?  Or, conversely, what if the person speaking does know the difference, or believes he does, between the two, but the person being addressed does not; does that make a difference?  Is there, objectively, a difference between the two, and can it be identified, delineated, understood and explained?

When we say, for example, that X is giving a gift to Y – is that different from saying that X is giving a gift for Y?  Or that Sally has shown great empathy to Mary, as opposed to showing great empathy for Mary – can the subtle difference of intentionality be derived?

Language is a difficult tool to master, to begin with, and grammar was once the medium by which correctness of communication could be embraced.  Much of grammar has now been discarded, abandoned and forsaken, and with the detritus of residue left behind, the subtlety of language – both in its usage as well as in its reception – has been lost.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, almost all of the encounters with the Federal agency responsible for review and determination on a Federal Disability Retirement application – i.e., the U.S. Office of Personnel Management – will be wrought through impersonal “paper” transactions – submission of the Standard Forms (e.g., SF 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability) and medical narrative reports and treatment records, as well as any Legal Memorandum prepared to argue your case – will be through an impersonal communication via language known, language learned and language imparted.

Knowing the subtleties of language, and the correct approach, the context and content driven by legal precedents and argumentation are all an important part of the process of preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application.  It may not have to get into the minutiae of the differentiation of prepositions like ‘for’ and ‘to’, but there is enough complexity in the language of such a strange frontier as Federal Disability Retirement Law so as to justify hiring an attorney who specializes in such administrative legal conundrums, whether to obtain a successful outcome or for attainment of one.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: Evidence of Sincerity

We question it; contest it; challenge when necessary by bringing up counter-evidence that seems to undermine it; and we all act with outrage and become highly offended when our own underlying intent is questioned, as if everyone else in the world is suspiciously lacking of it with the exception of one’s self.

“Sincerity” is a funny animal, and evidence of it is like the bond between the wrong committed and the arena of court applied: preponderance of the evidence?  Clear and Convincing?  Or, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

The choice depends upon the gullibility of the beholder and the relationship between the teller and the believer; then, for some, a breach and violation of a single instance forever condemns without recourse of forgiveness.

What is the evidence of sincerity?  Is it merely words upon words, or must actions follow, and constancy and consistency of behavior?

Take the following hypothetical: Person X says that he will meet you for lunch at Time-T, at location Y, and so at Time-T, at location Y, you go and wait.  And wait.  Person X never show up.  A few days later, you see Person X and you remind him that there had been a luncheon agreement, and why didn’t you show up?

Example A: The person apologizes profusely and reveals that he/she became gravely ill and was taken to the hospital at that very moment, on that day, during the time of the luncheon date.  Example B: The person says: “Oh, I found something better to do,” and essentially casts you aside.  Example C: The person (who has a wide and well-known reputation for being “flighty”), explains: “Oh-my-gosh!  I completely forgot!  I really meant to be there but I just completely forgot about it!”

Obviously, most of us would respond to each with: Forgive persons A and C; be angry at B.  Why do we react like this?

Again, the obvious answer is: We presume sincerity on the part of A and C (though, as to C, we give some leeway for a reputation preceding the doing, and if we were unaware of that reputation, we might want to proceed by putting the person on a “probationary” status of wariness and suspicion for the next time); as to B, the person has explicitly reversed any semblance of sincerity, and has told us to essentially go fly a kite.

Now, change the hypotheticals slightly: As to A: We later discover that he was seen precisely at Time-X to have been out and about with another person, and was never in the hospital.  In other words, he lied.  And as to C: Whether “flighty” or not, the person never honors a commitment, and consistently makes promises but each time breaks them.  In other words, whether sincere at the time or not, that person can never be relied upon.

And as to the problematic B: We later learn that at that very Time-T, he was actually in the hospital caring for his dying spouse, but did not want to burden you with the long and tragic narrative of his personal trials, and furthermore, his reputation prior to the promise broken is so far out of character that it had left you scratching your head with befuddlement in the first place.

Who, out of these examples, ends up being the “sincere” person, and what is the evidence that changed your mind?

Evidence of sincerity is often a touchy subject, where reputation, reality and roles of engagement coalesce to provide the “full” picture.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that a Federal Disability Retirement application must be prepared for submission to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the evidence of sincerity is often important in assessing friends, coworkers and trusted individuals in the dissemination of sensitive medical information.

Appearance cannot always be trusted; reputation, perhaps; but in the end, the evidence of sincerity is often merely a gut instinct that tells you who to trust and why.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Disability Retirement: Nascent knowledge

At what point does nascence become a maturity of device?  Is it linear time, or merely to exist within a pendulum of boredom where thoughts have moved on to other matters?  Youth, in general, is expected to engage in folly; but of nascent knowledge, where the appended concept of the latter connotes an established fact, a truism tested, and a hypothesis verified – but yet to be tested by time-worn principles and assimilated into the cauldron of society’s greater mixture of things working, defects allowable, and warts acknowledged as harmless.

For, newness itself should not be a basis for permanency of status, and as knowledge cannot be verified until tested, so nascent knowledge is the dangerous of all because it combines the defiance of dual categories:  Because it is new, it has not yet been tested; because it is “knowledge” unassimilated within the paradigms of commensurability like tectonic plates shifting to see what fits and what cannot be accommodated, so the lack of verification makes it that much more suspect.  Yet, we celebrate nascent knowledge “as if” the preceding announcement itself is as exciting as the introduction of a product advertised.

Don’t you miss those days of gangsters and badlands, when cell phones and close circuitry of images were missing, such that the detectives had to actually pursue the criminals?  Now, much of criminal investigation is reviewing of forensic evidence, and avoidance of conviction entails attacking the science of DNA analysis and the credentials of scientific application.

We have allowed for leaps and bounds over pauses of reflection, and never can we expect someone to evaluate and analyze an innovation and declare, “No, it just isn’t going to fit into the greater paradigm of our society”.  Why is that?  Is it because all souls are up for sale, and anything and everything that is deemed “new” becomes by definition that which is desirable and acceptable?  Or, is it merely a matter of economics, that the survival of a company or product is based upon the announcement of a more recent version, and vintage of merchandise is left for those with nostalgic tendencies, old fogies who lack the vibrancy of youth and the cult of newness?  That is, of course, where law and society clash; for, in law, the reliance upon constancy and precedent of legal opinions weigh heavily upon the judgment of current and future cases.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who needs to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the acceptance of nascent knowledge should include the medical condition, the current circumstances, and the present impact upon the Federal or Postal employee’s job elements.  But as to nascent knowledge involving cases past and statutory interpretations of yore?

Those are the very basis upon which law operates, and for which nascent knowledge is anything but a folly untried and unintended for future use.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement Benefits: Signs

It is the title of a song by a group called, “Five Man Electrical Band”, first released in 1970, then re-released in 1971, and the lyrics intelligently portray a world replete with warnings, admonitions, commands and curtailing threats, demanding of us a conduct of conformity otherwise ignored unless backed by such direct mandates.

Of course, there are the other, more subtle signs that we either ignore or otherwise dismiss because of the quiet manner of reproach initiated.  Those subtle signs as evidenced by facial expressions; of a look unexplainable but surely existent with consequential meaning; or premonitions of rougher surf and winds blowing, animals fleeing to the relative safe havens guided by instinctive alarm; and of the rush of adrenaline raising the tiny prickles upon out neck and backs, in dark corners of unlit areas when sounds so distant precede the visual image of oncoming danger.

Do we pick up on them, or go through life disregarding unless and until the reverberations of such deliberate ignorance shatters the calm and quietude of our joyful resolve to remain blind behind a security of negation?  Those trite statements of permeable permissibility:  “He was a nice, quiet man,” said the neighbor next door after the devastation left by the referent cause; “I never saw it coming,” hoarsely uttered by the hospitalized individual in the midst of destruction and debris-filled lands; “Who would have thought…”  And, indeed, in this universe where thinking is paramount, and observation of subtleties a requirement for survival, it is that which we ignore that can harm and injure.

There are those in life who float through and must be protected by means of oversight and constant care; some drivers on the road (or, perhaps, most of them) have no business carrying a license; it is only because others avoid and careen away that survival without a dent, a bruise or a catastrophic collision carries forth an undisturbed pathway from point A to the destination of choice.  And so we have new signs to consider:  It is now unlawful to text or otherwise use a Smartphone in hand, while others who drive with one hand stuffing a cheeseburger in one’s mouth while drinking a coke with the other, and with that invisible third hand pushing buttons on the panel to change satellite stations – somehow, that is safer because the signs tell us so, or at least implicitly inform as to the priority of current concerns.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are surrounded by signs – both subtle and direct – that it is time to move on, ignoring them will not make the underlying, substantive problems dissipate.  Having a medical condition is the first sign, but one which may have no significant impact; but when that medical condition begins to prevent the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal employee’s positional duties, then such an indicia of life’s intersecting whisper should, at a minimum, be elevated to a “warning”.

And when the signs flashing from the Agency’s perspective – of warnings, threats, harassing actions and administrative sanctions – begin to blare loudly as more than just a passing blur of the speed limit which we all tend to ignore, but instead becomes planted prominently for you and all to see, then it is time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, so that the signs indicated don’t result in those flashing lights in the review mirror forcing us to stop and be hauled before a magistrate to explain those actions of ignoring such signs which we knew, or should have known, needed to be followed.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: Deferred hope unrealized

Hope is a necessary component to life.  When one is born, there are rarely instructional manuals which accompany the organic package of severed umbilical cord, amniotic fluid, blood and plasma formed by hydrostatic forces beyond ordinary knowledge or wisdom; the entity appears, and we are left to our own devices.  But “life” cannot exist in a vacuum, though we are forged by admonitions that the tough road ahead should be traveled with fortitude, “rugged individualism” (whatever that is), and independence tantamount to abandonment.

Somehow, to live separately, away from one’s family and unit of security, is the mark of “maturity” in the West, whereas the rest of the world recognizes that the essence and value of hope lay not in separation, but within the bosom of a caring community.  And so we defer the one component which becomes a necessary essence in order to strive onward:  hope.

Hope deferred means that there is a hope upon a hope; that, one day, in some faraway land in fairytales which garner and engender a twinkle of faith in a world without charity, love or the emotional health of civilizations now lost and torn apart, we may stumble upon that which we had to delay in order to maintain our sanity.

And so we engage in those distracting projects which Heidegger pointed out (yes, that very same philosopher who took up the cause of the Third Reich, whether because of fear or belief in a false mythology that promised nothing but black boots, destruction and toil by fear) those many years ago, where avoidance of the ultimate terminus of Being is why we descend into inane conversations of untimely concerns.

Which is also why the loss of innocence so early in life, where fairytales and mythologies once enjoyed have been replaced in modernity by stories barely masked as propaganda and indoctrination, is the pathway towards despair; no longer of glass slippers or castles in the sky, but of political correctness and belief in the system of ideologies; for, a society fragmented can only retain its semblance of sanity by keeping the masses in a dazed opioid of tethered slumber.

It is when the mature realization hits us that the deferred hope – which is a hope-upon-hope – will likely remain unrealized, thus undermining the prefatory hope and debasing the foundational hope, that angst, despair and despondency sets in.  Until that moment, we have that thin thread of faith in a fragile collection of psychic composite, barely held together by some miracle of superglue, yet enough to keep us motivated in a society filled with vacuity of hopelessness in a deep chasm of endless travesties.

For the Federal employee and U.S. Postal workers whose career is about to be cut short by a medical condition, such that the medical condition necessitates the preparation, formulation and filing of an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the deferred hope of attaining a semblance of health and reversal of sleep deprivation may be gotten by the steps taken towards an OPM filing.

If there is yet a deferred hope unrealized, it may be time – whether the Postal or Federal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset – to actualize that potentiality left in a well of past procrastination, by preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, thus realizing that hope once deferred, and now within grasp and sight of embracing a promising future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire