FERS Disability Retirement Benefits: The Commonplace

Without it, there would not be the extraordinary; or, at least we would not notice it.  For, if all of X is Y, then there is no distinction between X and Y and the identity of X would be subsumed by Y, and conversely, the identity of Y would lose its distinctive identification.  Similarly, if everything is nothing, then nothing is everything, and as negation is the dominant gene, nothingness would prevail (or some such logical nonsense as that).

It is precisely because of the commonplace that the extraordinary can be identified; and yet, we never applaud the former but exuberantly place accolades and laud the latter.  Of course, when the commonplace becomes extraordinary, that is when we yearn for it — as when our lives are disrupted and torn apart, as in the war in Ukraine.  We identify with it because we can relate to it — of a nation enjoying the commonplace, and suddenly it is gone and replaced by the extraordinary, where the term “extraordinary” is used to describe the indescribable.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service 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one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the commonplace of being healthy has now been replaced by the extraordinary of suffering from a medical condition, and it is because of this change that one’s “regular career” must now be replaced by a Federal Disability Retirement annuity under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

For, the commonplace (ability to continue as usual) is now the extraordinary (the effects from the medical condition itself), and the yearning for the commonplace is precisely because X has been subsumed by Y.

Contact a FERS Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and get the commonplace back by replacing the extraordinary.

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 Retirement: Against The Wall

It is variously described — an obstruction; an obstacle; but seen from the inside, it allows for privacy and protection.  Think about the story of the Three Little Pigs and the differing materials of construction, where the first two failed in implementing a secure-enough wall to withstand the forces of the wolf’s cunning attacks.

In every phase of life, we encounter them; how we view them, what we do when we see them as obstructions as opposed to insulating, protective entities — it reveals much.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are intending to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “the wall” is represented by OPM itself; for, they hold all of the proverbial “cards” in approving or denying a Federal Disability Retirement case.

You, the Federal or Postal applicant, stand on the left side of the wall.  How you climb over the wall onto the right side — an approval from OPM — depends upon how you maneuver against the wall.  Do you go against the wall by sheer luck and lack of forethought?  Or, do you build or buy a ladder — metaphorically speaking, of course — which includes logical and legal argumentation?

Contact an OPM Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and stop banging your head against the wall, and instead, begin to build the solid foundation which is built to overcome the obstacle between you and a Federal Disability Retirement.

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.

 

Postal & Federal Employee Disability Retirement: The Goal of What?

Goals are important to have.  They provide for a destination point; a place where dreams have been projected unto; the ends for which we strive.

We often live by metaphors, and the one which pervades often encompasses sports and competition, of “goal posts” and “end zones”, of the last second buzzer where the swish of the ball sinks into the netting and the crowd roars in a unison of applause (although, even that has now been taken away with the Coronavirus pandemic); or even of a “finish line” in a marathon or the checkered flag for the fastest car.

It is, in the end, the goal to win, the goal to pass through, the goal to reach.  But what about the road taken, the path traveled, the route that is considered?  What if all of that changes, and the goal itself can no longer be reached without doing harm to one’s self?  Should a quarterback continue to play despite an injury?  Should a runner continue to “press on” despite doing harm to him or herself?  Shouldn’t the goal change in order to accommodate the altering circumstances of an individual’s trek?

The question thus becomes: The goal of what?  Is it worthwhile to reach retirement age if to do so will leave you in a debilitated state?

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 goal may well remain the same: Of retirement.  It may just be necessary to take the retirement a little early by filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.

Consult with a FERS Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest the goal of what becomes too poignant a question such that the goal posts become too far removed and beyond reach.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The prerequisite of thought

What constitutes “thought” and fails to satisfy the allegation that one has not engaged in it?

Take the following example: A young man who is courting a young woman buys a bouquet of flowers on his way home, but stops by at her place just to say hello.  She — seeing the flowers — declares, “Oh, how thoughtful of you.”  He sheepishly smiles and nods his head, but in reality the flowers were to spruce up his own apartment.  He explains this to the young woman, and she turns a smile into its opposite — a frown — and reverses her opinion, telling the cad how “thoughtless” he is being.

In reality, he had done no such thing — he had, in fact, “thought” about it, only not in the sequence that the young woman had desired.  Yet, he is charged with being “thoughtless” — and one could argue that such a charge is applicable in that he should have “thought about it” before stopping by her place, and instead should have gone ahead and followed a route straight home.

Or, of another example: Say you are debating a point with another individual, or a group of individuals, and someone during the course of your monologue says, “It is clear that you haven’t thought about it.” What, precisely, does that allegation mean and imply?  Would it have made any difference if you had previously taken yourself into a corner, sat for an hour or two reflectively posed like the famous statue by Rodin’s “The Thinker”, chin upon knuckle in a reflective pose of self-absorption — then come back to engage in the discussion?

What if your contribution to the conversation included as great an expanse of idiocy as if you had not “thought about it” — but the mere fact that you had sat for a couple of hours, or perhaps a weeklong sojourn of contemplative solitude — does it make a difference?  Isn’t “thinking about it” often done in the course of give-and-take, during the conversation engaged, as opposed to being lost in one’s own mind?

Further, isn’t singularity and isolation of “thinking” often the wrong approach, inasmuch as you may be missing something, have inadequate information, illogical in the process because of selfish interests unrecognizable, and therefore the best kind of thinking often involves debate, countering opinions and other’s input, as opposed to the isolationism of “The Thinker”?

Would it make sense to ask a dozen or so physicists to “solve the mystery of the universe” by gathering them together, then making each sit in a corner and “think about it”, as opposed to engaging them in a “give-and-take” brainstorming session?  Isn’t much of thinking “done” by engagement with others, as opposed to a soliloquy of isolationism?  If so, then why is there too often a prerequisite of thought?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have “thought” about 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, the first and most important step in making the “right” decision may not be by engaging in an isolationism of “thinking about it”, but by consulting with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement law.

There is no prerequisite of thought in picking up the telephone and having an initial, free consultation with an attorney to discuss the particulars of your case, and engaging in the thoughtful exercise of considering OPM Disability Retirement by actively participating in the productive modality of thinking.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement Benefits: Those Strands That Bind

Issues in life are rarely singular or simple; instead, they tend to be like a spider’s web, woven into a complex fabric of intricate turbulence, beautiful in its interlacing connections, waiting attractively for its prey unbeknownst to the subtle entanglements welcoming patiently.  And so do we walk right into those strands that bind.  Legal issues are like that.  They rarely present themselves in clean lines of linear singularities.  Instead, like relationships, children and the dawn of technological innovation, they criss-cross through boundaries yet unknown, with dangers foreboding beyond consequences plainly displayed and forever mysterious.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers seeking help and legal guidance to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the workplace issues surrounding one’s medical condition is often intricately entangled with multiple considerations: adverse actions; harassment; increasing pressures from the agency; violation of privacy rights and seeming refusal to properly address the protocols of administration procedures; then, throw in the medical condition and the emotional upheavals surrounding the situation, and a potent circumstance of turmoil and consternation beyond mere irritability can result in the web of imbroglio necessitating calmer heads.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM is often the best alternative to sever those strands which bind; and while residual web-like wisps of magnetized elements may try and draw one into a static state of situated hostility, it may be time to cut all of the strings which keep pulling at preventing forward progress, and consider the ultimate step by preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, and leave aside and behind those strands that not only bind, but hold back one from advancing towards a better and brighter future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement from Federal Jobs: Prerogatives

The exclusivity of a right or privilege can remain dormant until asserted; and assertion triggers and activates, and suddenly that which consisted merely of quietude and inertia, becomes the centrality of controversy, contention and adversarial encounter.  Much of life is like that; resembling the proverbial elephant in the sitting room, or the decaying clump of unidentified derivation of unseemly scents, people tend to avoid and take a wide berth while acting “as if” throughout the day, the week, a year, and in a lifetime.

In olden days of yore, the “prerogative” was retained by the King, the Crown and the Papacy to assert or not, depending often upon the whims of emotional and political turmoil.  The fact of inactivity or inertia with respect to the right or privilege did not result in the loss of it; rather, it merely meant that the non-use of power only magnified the unlimited potentiality for tyranny.  One doesn’t lose something merely because it isn’t used; unless, of course, you are a common man or woman without power or purpose.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have been “allowed” by one’s agency or the U.S. Postal Service to continue to remain in one’s position at the “prerogative” of the agency or the U.S. Postal Service, by being retained in some capacity of “light duty” or informal arrangement of “less-than-full-duty” status, the attitude and atmosphere can be likened to the Royal Family allowing and granting a limited dispensation at the mercy of the Crown, and always with humble subservience of gratitude and metaphorical acts of low-bowing.

While it is dangerous to be indebted to someone else for too much, the greater travail is to believe that one owes something of value when in fact no such indebtedness ever existed.

For Federal and 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 positional duties, the fact that the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service “says” that it is “accommodating” the Federal or Postal employee, does not necessarily make it so.

The prerogative to file 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, always remains and is retained by the Federal or Postal employee, even throughout a circumstance and situation where the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service contends that the Federal or Postal employee is being “accommodated”.  For, the term itself is one of art, and “accommodation” — in order to be a legally viable accommodation — must meet certain standards and rise to a level of legal sufficiency.

The mere fact that the Federal agency on High says it is so, no longer applies; for, despite its claim to greater status of Royalty, the days of uncontested power through mere lineage no longer exists, except perhaps in the feeble minds of the commoner who treads the hallways of Federal agencies and U.S. Post Offices with fear, trembling, and humble subservience.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: How Long Can Negation Define Living?

The tipping point where negation of living constitutes greater time spent than affirmative enjoyment of the activity engaged, is determined by individual choices and preferences.  Some individuals retain a higher threshold for pain, discomfort, and capacity to endure; and the fact that an MRI reveals a degenerative or decaying physical attribute does not necessarily correlate with the capability to ignore or otherwise minimize the magnitude of pain.

To what extent one avoids “doing something” in order to contain the pain; deny the self from pursuance of an activity in order to endure; to maintain quietude and an immobilized sedentary state of being in an effort to make the worn body and troubled mind last for a day, a week, or a decade longer; such are the efforts expended in a life of negation, in order to continue to “live”.  But is life defined by a quantum?  Or, is quantity in any way related to quality?  In “elder law”, there is often a discussion about “quality of life” issues, but the fact is, such a question and concern pervades with significance throughout one’s life, and not just towards the twilight of living.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition,such that the medical condition begins to prevent one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties in the Federal Sector or the U.S. Postal Service, the question of when “enough” is already “too much” is one which haunts, tails, latches on as an appendage of inflamed emotions, and refuses mere hand-waving as an irritant to swat away.

Yes, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is a major step in one’s life, but at some point, the alternative left unstated and ignored must be directly confronted and faced with courage, pragmatism and prudent behavior.

Habit of negation can become so intertwined with one’s daily life, that it remains as a compromise allowed because one believed that no alternative was offered.  But as a life defined by negation becomes, at some point, a qualitative issue where all joy has been sucked out of the vibrancy of rightful ownership, so the choice to change in order to attain a semblance of a past life, memorialized in times of youth where pain and psychiatric disorders were merely hypothetical constructs hinted at by “others” in the community, so taking an affirmative step in order to be released from the confines of daily toil and turmoil is often the best and most hopeful avenue towards a life of positive images.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM is often the best choice left in order to “move on” towards a greater definition of “life as living” once forgotten because of the constant harassment and fear imposed by the Federal agency and the U.S. Postal Service.  At some point, negation cannot define living, as life is more than avoidance, and there is joy to be found beyond Federal employment and the U.S. Postal Service.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire