Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: Testing a Relationship

If the advent of a crisis is a true test of a relationship, then the satisfaction of an ongoing need in response to the crisis is the harbinger of sincerity.  Testing the relationship is often the secondary trauma one must experience in life; for, the feeling of isolation which often accompanies a crisis — that sense that no one else can fully understand the experience; that others, while empathetic words of condolences may be uttered, can always seek the refuge of their comfortable zones of privacy and go on with their lives — is further exacerbated by the island of singularity which one recognizes in the face of finding one’s self in the the human condition of crisis.

For the Federal and Postal employee who suffers from a medical condition, such that the chronicity and progressive decline of that medical condition impacts one’s ability to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job, the testing of relationships must necessarily occur.  The test of that doctor-patient relationship, to see whether and to what extent one’s longstanding treating doctor will support the need for Federal Disability Retirement; the test of the worker-to-coworker relationship; the employer-employee relationship; they all become tested, to observe their elasticity, their durability, and their sincerity.

Fortunately, it is not one’s own agency which makes a determination on a Federal Disability Retirement application, but rather, a separate, independent agency — the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  But one’s own agency is required to complete certain portions of a Federal Disability Retirement application, and those required parts will also be a partial test.  For the Federal and Postal employee who must endure the crisis of a medical condition.

Federal Disability Retirement is a process which will test many things — not the least of which will involve who were and are one’s true friends.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Gov. and USPS Disability Retirement: Expectations

Expectations are peculiar anticipatory states of being; based upon an accurate assessment of factual considerations, they can comport with a true sense of reality; dependent upon an unrealistic foundation of pure desire and want, it can lead to a devastating loss of trust.  In order to avoid unrealistic expectations, it is necessary to evaluate and assess, as much as possible, facts from past experience, objective present circumstances, and projection of fairly accurate intuitions for the future.

For Federal and Postal workers contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, a realistic expectation as to all aspects and corridors of the benefit itself is necessary in order to survive the entirety of the administrative and bureaucratic ordeal.

From evaluating the strength of one’s medical support, to the ability to convey a persuasive argument and case to an agency which reviews tens of thousands of Federal Disability Retirement cases; from a realistic timeframe of the entire process from start to finish; to financial considerations and future earnings potential and whether one can work in another job or vocation.  All such considerations should be evaluated and discussed.

In the end, however, the Federal employee who is contemplating filing for Federal or Postal Disability Retirement benefits often is confronted with limited choices: to continue working under the same conditions, that is, doing with the same tasks in the same Federal occupation (normally not an option, and that is why Federal Disability Retirement is considered in the first place); to walk away without filing for disability retirement benefits (almost never an option — self-evidently so); or filing for disability retirement benefits (the necessary option, and why it is being considered in the first place).

It is the expectations which often dismay, however, and it is a good idea to keep that animal in a cage of realistic assessments.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Disability Retirement for Federal Government Employees: The Door Left Ajar

The image of the door left ajar is one likened to the metaphor of the tree which falls in a forest without a human around to observe the phenomena; the question of whether the event created a sound is a conundrum, and a double-one at that, for the moment we ponder it, we insert a human perspective into the equation, and any attempt to delete our presence only compounds the puzzlement.

A door left ajar implies that someone or some animal partially opened it, or perhaps in reverse; but in either event, the image of a door neither fully shut nor widely open, leaves an impression of some presence.  Moreover, it is that partial opening which represents lack of complete satisfaction, of something left undone, which stirs the emotions of one’s imagination.

For the Federal employee who is reaching certain milestones of Federal or Postal Service, the “light at the end of the tunnel” is often seen within one’s grasp, as a door left slightly ajar, and inviting one to take hold of the doorknob, open it wide, and exit into the sunset of life.  When the door left ajar is within view and reach, the expectation of exiting becomes a magnified potentiality about to be embraced.

But often, with only a couple of years left, unexpected events can occur.  A medical condition can impact one’s ability to reach that magical age of retirement, or be cut short before accruing the years of service needed.  The door left ajar is suddenly beyond reach, and the winds of life seemingly slams shut the once-inviting entranceway.

Federal Disability Retirement, no matter how close one is to regular retirement, may be the option of choice. Whether under FERS or CSRS, Disability Retirement through the Office of Personnel Management is an option left open for all Federal and Postal employees.

The image of the door left ajar is merely a metaphor of life; how one responds to the reality of each particular situation will determine the consequences of one’s future.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Unexpected Course of Events

Expectations are a peculiar phenomena in the human mind:  it occurs through a history of past experiences; tempered by present circumstances; projected through rational evaluation and analysis of past perspectives and present conditions.  One’s record of fulfilled expectations, as against failed or unforeseen ones, portend the validity of future such thoughts.

While medical conditions themselves may not meet the criteria of an expected event, once it becomes a part of one’s existential condition, it is important to evaluate resulting and consequential events, circumstances and causal relationships in order to make plans for one’s future.  One must not ruminate about the unfortunate course of events for too long; there is further work to be done.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, medical determinations must be made as to future expectations which will impact present circumstances:  Will the condition last for a minimum of 12 months?  What are the chances of recovery from the condition such that sufficiency of rehabilitation will result in returning to work and being able to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job?  How will the agency act/react (not too much in terms of expectations should be considered on this issue)?  What can one expect in terms of a Federal Disability Retirement annuity?  And many other questions which will need to be addressed in order to bring to fore the past, project it into the future, such that decisions impacting the present can be made.

Expectations:  It is where the past, present and future coalesce in the fertile human mind for purposes of decision-making, thereby confirming Aristotle’s dictum that we are not merely animals, but rational animals with a teleological bent.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Expectation of a Rational Basis

Giving a “reason” is the basis of rationality.  In some sense, such a statement is merely a tautology, a redundancy in propositional logic (as pointed out by Wittgenstein), or what Kant had termed as an analytic a priori statement, where the subject (“reason”) is essentially identical to the object (“rationality”) in definitional terms.  But it is precisely the providing of a reason which forms the proper basis for proceeding in a rational manner.

Thus, if a X states that it will rain today, the follow-up query might be:  “Why do you believe that?”  If X answers, “Because I say so,” such a “reason” would not be an acceptable basis to act upon, precisely because it is neither a valid reason nor a basis of rationality.  Contrast that to the following:  “Because the national weather service, after an extensive study of the weather patterns for the past two weeks, has concluded that there is a 97% chance of rain today.”  Now, one may argue that predictions concerning the weather are notoriously unreliable to begin with; but nevertheless, the latter forms a basis for proceeding in a rational manner, while the former gives us no such foundation.

Similarly, in all sectors of one’s life, one has an expectation of giving and receiving “reasons” for which to act upon.  In a Federal Disability Retirement case, we are expected to provide reasons for why a Federal employee or Postal worker is “eligible” for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Conversely, it is a “reasonable” expectation to receive a “reason” when a Federal Disability Retirement application is denied at any stage of the process.  Templates used by OPM will often only present the most superficial of reasons; and some reasonings as proposed by OPM may be self-contradictory.

In the end, whatever the reasons given, the Federal or Postal Disability Retirement applicant must respond with reasons why OPM is wrong, or provide a rational basis for a difference of opinions.  But that is another matter for a different blog altogether — the very issue of “opinions” and what should be the foundation of a valid one.  For, after all, we each of us possess them, and a scant few make much of a difference.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Retirement: Great Expectations

The title of this blog, borrowed (of course) from Dickens’ great novel, refers to the contrast between the reality of X and the mental projection of what should be, in the mind of an individual.

What does this have to do with filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS?  When an application for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS is carefully prepared, meticulously gathered, painfully delineated, and thoughtfully prepared, one has the (logical) expectation that, when it is reviewed and evaluated by the Office of Personnel Management, that a certain minimal level of intellectual discourse would be engaged in.

In other words, it should not be an unrealistic expectation that, if it is denied or disapproved, that the person who is writing the letter of denial would provide some fundamental delineation of reasons; some intellectual discussion addressing certain aspects of the Federal Disability Retirement packet; even (God forbid) a revelation of some logical discourse with a legally viable basis in making an argument.

Alas, such an expectation would be too much to bear.  The great chasm between the reality of the process and the expectation which one has, is one which will lead only to disappointment.  If a denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application comes, it is a rare event that the Office of Personnel Management engages in any justifiable discussion.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: Point of Necessity

Just as one should purchase insurance based upon the worst-case scenario, so one should generally prepare for anything in life with unexpected consequences in mind.  This is similar to the proper approach in preparing, formulating, deciding, and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS & CSRS.  People will often call an attorney only when he or she “thought it necessary”.  But who determined the point of necessity?  If the individual who determines the point of necessity is the same person who finds him or herself at the point of necessity, then it is often too little too late. 

Can most cases be reversed and won even after an initial denial?  Yes.  Can most cases be reversed and won even after a second denial at the Reconsideration Stage?  Yes.  Can most cases be reversed and won even after an initial denial, a denial at the Reconsideration Stage, then an adverse Initial Decision by an Administrative Judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board?  Perhaps.  How about thereafter?  You are then asking if, after all of the facts have been put forth, after all of the stages of consideration by the administrative process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether an error in the application of the law can be found.  Yes, at each state of the process, a Federal Disability Retirement application can be won; however, remember the the “point of necessity” is not best determined by the one who thinks it is finally necessary; it is often best determined by an experienced OPM Disability attorney.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire