FERS Medical Retirement from OPM: Objectivity

In the West, the traditional approach is to be far removed and dispassionate in attempting to attain that level of acceptable discernment.  If there is even a whiff of personal involvement, a suspicion of a self-serving motive, or some indication of emotional application, the revered status of objectivity comes into question.

For some unknown reason, the label “To be objective” must ignore and minimize all that is preternaturally human.  A Kantian would argue that objective knowledge is a goal inherently impossible to achieve, precisely because we possess only subjective capabilities and impose our worldview upon everything we analyze, evaluate and assess.

To that extent, it becomes a mere tautology, for if we are incapable of reaching beyond  ourselves, then there would be no point in even trying.  But try we do, and in the Western Philosophical tradition, we employ devices such as Logic, the Socratic method of endless self-examination, and a touch of mystical fairy dust sprinkled as “objective analysis”.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who submit a Federal Disability Retirement Application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the FERS system, the argument for objectivity is often refuted by OPM based upon a “lack thereof”.  OPM will argue that the “pain” one experiences, or the emotional impact from psychiatric conditions, is “purely subjective” and is therefore invalid as a basis for approving a FERS Disability Retirement application.

This, too, is a circular, tautological argument, precisely because ‘pain’ by definition, is always subjective.  Yet, that is not what the applicable law concerning the established legal criteria of proving a FERS Disability Retirement case holds, and despite OPM knowing this, they will systematically ignore the applicable laws governing FERS Disability Retirements.

In order to rebut OPM’ s baseless charge that your Federal Disability Retirement case lacks objectivity, contact a FERS Disability Lawyer who specializes in the practice area of OPM Disability Retirement Law, and successfully refute the fallacy of objectivity or the lack thereof.

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 Disability Retirement: Knowledge & Application

We tend to separate the two, and have generally been taught that the former — even without the latter — is a “good” thing.  Our grade school teachers certainly repetitively pounded it into our thick skulls; and higher academia relies upon the belief that knowledge, “in and of itself”, is a valuable thing.  Application — or utility — is of the “business” world, and for academicians, somewhat sullies the purity of knowledge.

Perhaps it began with Plato — on the other hand, doesn’t all of Western Civilization begin with Plato (and by fiat, Socrates)?  Knowledge of the Forms; the metaphor of the famous “Cave”; the conceptual ideal of the purity of ideas; the Socratic method of questioning for the sake of attaining wisdom — all of it, without the worth based upon application or utility.

The first poor fellow who discovered a vein of gold — certainly, the beauty of the glitter must have astounded, but even with that “knowledge” of beauty, did he understand the future application of value in the commodity markets?  And of those oddball individuals who love to collect bits of information — of knowledge — without any practical application — we have all met them; of people who suddenly spout statistical data just to show off their knowledge, etc.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who, because of a medical condition, need to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, be fully aware that both knowledge (of the laws pertaining to Federal Disability Retirement) and application (of the persuasive authority of statutes, regulations and case-law) are needed to win a Federal Disability Retirement fight against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Knowledge is good; knowledge and application, in the “real” world, are better.

Contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin the process of not only knowing about the complex laws governing Federal Disability Retirement, but moreover, to have the powerful asset of applying that knowledge where it really counts — in the application itself.

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.

 

FERS Disability Attorney Representation: Confusion

What is it?  Does being uninformed and acting upon wrong information result in the conclusion that one suffers from it?  What if you deliberately ignore facts?  Or, must it involve some notion that in spite of the information available, one cannot either comprehend the available data or there exists some inability to understand the presented information?

Confusion is rampant in modernity, and whether we can define it or understand its origins, the fact remains that there appears to be a proportionality between the greater volume of information made available, and the number of individuals who suffer more and more from this malady designated as “confusion”.

The world has devolved more and more into a technical field of information gluttony; and while we may fool ourselves into believing that our present civilization is the most advanced in the history of the universe, the lack of coherence in thought, rationality and capacity to comprehend the available information gathered is astounding.

Federal Disability Retirement Law, as well, can be confusing and confounding.

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, contact an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and make sure that confusion is not the basis for which the U.S. Office of Personnel Management denies your Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS.

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 Disability Retirement Law: The Grand Plan

It would certainly be nice if we all possessed one — set in stone, written and accompanied at our birth, mapping out our future and showing each of us what steps to take.  Perhaps, some would interpret such a fantasy as one inviting totalitarianism, and a rebellion would be incited based upon the notion that we all should be entitled to liberty — to have the freedom to choose our own destiny.  Yes, but look where that has gotten us.

The “Grand Plan” — that plan of all plans, the roadmap for our lives, the destiny-setting details already fated without our input; now, who wouldn’t want such a treasure trove?  There are, indeed, some individuals who seem to possess and follow such a map, while the rest of us struggle to “find our way” or to “know what to do”.  The world is full of individuals who fall in the category of “undecideds”.  We refer to them with euphemisms like, “He is a late bloomer”, “She’s taking off a year to get her bearings”, or “He just hasn’t found himself”, etc.

To paraphrase a character from an old movie, “I can’t even figure out how to use the can opener; how am I to know what to do with the rest of my life?”  As an old Chinese proverb states, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step”.  Take life in increments; begin with small projects and build upon them.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have encountered medical conditions which have become an impediment to “The Grand Plan”, you may want to consider filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS.

Each of us has a contribution to make; each of us has plans for the future; but when a medical condition necessitates a Federal or Postal employee to alter or modify that “Grand Plan” of a career, you may need to consider Federal Disability Retirement as an added feature of that Grand Plan which never appeared when the birth certificate was first written.

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 Disability Retirement: Silence of the Unasked Question

If we don’t ask, we will never know.  Are some questions better left unasked?  In life, is it better to keep your head stuck in the sand and living in ignorance than to know what may come one’s way?  Do we say to the child who is constantly curious, “Shush. Better not to know how things work”?

Fear of the unknown is often the basis of silence; and silence of the unasked question is that pause which reverberates within with trembling hesitation, but where holding one’s breath merely extends the agony of the silence and never resolves the fear.

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, silence often becomes the norm; leaving aside the unasked question is the pathway to comfort, except for the fact that medical conditions never go away.

Contact an OPM Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer and break the silence of the unasked question.  It is a free initial consultation, so what have you got to lose — except to break the silence of the unasked question?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Lawyer

 

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: A Reason for Everything

Why must we attach one to each event, every occurrence, all episodes?  Is there one for everything?  Must there be a “reason” for every event in life?

We require explanations — whether of a transcendent nature, a motive or a foundation explaining a causal connection; but is the necessity inherent in the event, or does it reveal more about ourselves as a species which demands a rational explanation?  Does it matter, ultimately, whether the rising of the sun is explained by referring to the awakening of the gods or that the revolution of the earth rotating around the sun explains the phenomena, and that the sun doesn’t actually rise, but because of the spinning cycle of the earth, dawn comes upon us?

Of course, in daily living, whichever explanation we accept — whether of the gods yawning and awakening or the more “scientific” explanation about planets and their rotational movements — matters not except perhaps to raise eyebrows during the course of a conversation with your boss, but it does, of course, make a tremendous difference if you work at NASA and are planning the next space mission.

We seek a reason for everything; that is the nature of human beings, and for Federal employees 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 job, the reason given to the question, “Why me?” may not be a simple one.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS may not answer the age-old questions concerning causality, but it will at least allow you to focus upon your health and the priorities in life.  Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement; at the very least, some of the questions and reasons concerning the complex conundrum concerning disability retirement may be answered.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
FERS Disability Attorney

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The Promising Beginning

We look upon with sadness that which once was, and remorsefully retro-fit what could have been despite that which never was meant to be.

The promising beginning is the one that originated with fullness of hope and expectations; then, there is a “middle ground” — a point where paths diverge and perhaps the critical juncture where success, failure, or something in-between presents itself; and then the journey continues for some time until a point is reached where retrospective regrets may begin to develop, and we think to ourselves: Ah, what a promising beginning, but….  It is, of course, the “but” that pauses and the silence which follows that tells us all the rest of the story; of the wrong path taken, the promise left unfulfilled and the caravan of decisions left undiminished.  But from whose perspective?

Perhaps there were interruptions — of relational interests that took some focus away, or a boredom which set in to detract from the singularity of focus which was required; but such decisions may have merely moderated that “promising beginning” that was never meant to be.  And of those issues where one had no control over — such as a medical condition that reminded one that, while careers are important for a time, one’s health should always be a priority, no matter the time or circumstances.

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, and where the once “promising beginning” seemingly has stalled or stopped completely because of the medical condition, it may be time to shed one’s self of false expectations and unrealistic values, and to look to the future by preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

Not all beginnings are meant to have an ending as promised, and in any event, remember that the only promise that needs keeping is the one that allows for an ending of hope, where expectations include the priority of one’s health and the necessity for change when change is required.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Attorney Representation for OPM Disability Claims: Fair Games

It depends upon how you read the concept, which word or syllable you place the accent or emphasis upon, doesn’t it?

In one sense of the concept, it has to do with games found at the county or state Fairs — you know, where cotton candy is sold and prizes are awarded for the largest potato grown or the fattest pig shown.  In another sense, it is in contrast to its opposite — of games where you have a good chance because rules are imposed and upheld, as opposed to “unfair” games where the proverbial deck is stacks against you.  It is in this second sense of the term that we apply.

Fairness itself is a difficult concept, precisely because of its malleability.  One concept of fairness is an arguable delineation based upon rules, perspectives, and even perhaps of cultural backgrounds.  Rules themselves can be attacked, and are “fair game” when it comes to disputatious boundaries, where there are essentially none to circumvent.

You can argue that such-and-such a call was unfair, and that obnoxious fan sitting next to you might counter, “But that’s within the rules of the game,” and you might then counter to the counter, “Then the game is rigged and the rules are unfair!”  What would be the counter-answer to the counter of the counter?  Perhaps, to say: “Listen, buddy, I don’t make up the rules.  It’s fair by definition if everyone who plays the game has to play by the same rules.”  Is that the silencer — the conversation-stopper — that cannot be argued against?

But what if everyone theoretically has to “play by the rules of the game”, but the rules are administered in a lopsided manner?  Is that what makes the game “unfair”?  Isn’t that what fans the world over complain about when the umpire, for example, sets the “strike zone” (or in other contexts, the “foul zone” or some such similar animal) too wide for some pitchers and too narrow for others?

Or, wasn’t there something like the “Jordan Rule” where a certain player was allowed to take an “extra step” (or two or three, for that matter) and no “traveling violation” was called, because the beauty of his fluid movements surpassed and transcended any “rules” that might disrupt the mesmerizing effect of such human defiance of gravity right before our eyes?  Could you imagine what an uproar that would have caused, where the player-in-question flies through the air with such acrobatic display of gravity-defying beauty, slam-dunks the ball to the rising wave of appreciative fans, and a whistle is blown — and the basket is disallowed?

That awkward motion that the referee engages in — you know, where both hands are balled up into a fist and made into a circular motion, indicating that a traveling violation has occurred — and then pointing to the scoring table and telling them to subtract the 2-points just previously awarded…is it “fair”?  Should fairness sometimes be overlooked when beauty-in-mid-flight entertains us to such ecstatic delights?

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 worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, life often begins to appear as if “fairness” is no longer an applicable rule — for, is it “fair” that one’s health has deteriorated despite doing everything to take care of it?  Is it “fair” that others seem to have lived a life of excess but seem not to be impacted at all by the abundance of maltreatment?  Is it “fair” that others appear to be receiving favoritism of treatment, while your Federal Agency or the Postal Service appears to be targeting you for every minor infraction of the “rules”?

Life, in general, is unfair, and when a Federal or Postal worker seems to be the target of unfair treatment because of a progressively deteriorating medical condition, it may well be time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

Life is often unfair in general; but when it comes to applying and enforcing “the Law”, it is best to consult with an experienced attorney, especially when seeking to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits through OPM.  And like the “Jordan Rule” concerning extra-rule-violation treatment, it is best to make sure that your attorney makes the Rules of the Game enforced — and fair.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Retirement under FERS & CSRS: Deviating and adapting

How does one deviate or adapt, if one is approaching something anew?

Such concepts as modifying or altering a methodology presumes that one has encountered the process before, and thus it stands to reason that a person who has never previously experienced something before can hardly be expected to provide new insights when the experience itself is new to the individual.  That is why we often refer to a person’s ability and capacity to “think on his or her feet” — meaning, to quickly encompass and adapt to new and fluid circumstances, despite a lack of familiarity with an onslaught of speedy changes.

Deviating, of course, can be a negative component, in that it may imply altering from a true-and-tested course of action, and unless one is certain of one’s confidence in a new path taken, there may ensue disastrous consequences when following a rebellious path that can lead to the unknown.  Many a trailblazer who knew not the way of the unbeaten path have perished by starvation or thirst.

On the other hand, we consider the capacity and ability of “adapting” to be a positive characteristic, in that it implies a characteristic of being able to respond to external circumstances that are changing, and requires a willingness to bend with the winds of change.

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 employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, the dual concept of deviating and adapting comes to the fore precisely because of the need to change — both on the Agency/Postal Service’s side, as well as from the perspective of the Federal or Postal employee.

For the Federal Agency or the Postal Service, the issue of deviating and adapting comes about in terms of “accommodation” — for, it is necessary for the Federal Agency and the Postal Service, by force of law, to “deviate” from the former ways of behaving, and to “adapt” to the medical conditions and changes that the Federal or Postal employee is undergoing.

From the viewpoint of the Federal or Postal employee, deviating and adapting may encompass a wide range of issues in terms of accommodations — whether the situation and conditions posed are temporary or permanent by nature; whether the medical conditions suffered are able to be accommodated at all, either temporarily or permanently; and whether attendance is an issue; of how much SL must be taken; of FMLA issues and extensions of LWOP beyond, etc.

In the end, deviating and adapting from the “norm” may not be possible, in which case preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, may become necessary.

For all Federal and Postal employees, what is important to remember is that suffering from a progressively deteriorating medical condition will require deviating and adapting, and that may include the need to have expert legal guidance by an attorney who has previously had the experience in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application so that any and all deviations and adaptations can be initiated from the perspective of previous experience, and not as a trailblazer off of the beaten path where getting lost in the complexities of Federal Disability Retirement Laws can lead to disastrous results.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer for Federal Disability Retirement claims: Fact and opinion

These days, the distinction between the two has been almost completely lost.  One must qualify such a statement with “almost”, only because there may still be minority bastions and pockets of hope still holding out that the madness prevailing will someday be overcome.

Somehow, the lines bifurcating the distinction that once were so obvious became obscured, until suddenly it was no longer a matter of just blurry lines, but the lines themselves had disappeared, and no one spoke as if there was a difference to be had.  Facts were confirmed and established “somethings” in either the objective world or of tradition-laden statements that we could all agree upon; opinions were various interpretations of those commonly-accepted facts, interspersed with the subjective content that often prefaced with, “It is my opinion that…”.

We have now discarded even the prefatory admonition, now, because it has become an unnecessary addendum; since there are no longer any facts, and everyone is privileged to hold an opinion, we go ahead and speak not facts because our opinion holds out just as well, thank you very much.

Where did it all begin?  Was it because Plato made too much about the difference between reality and appearance — so much so that he was forced to manufacture his conceptual fiction of ethereal “Forms” that itself became so problematic?  Or was it with Descartes, where certainty of one’s own existence became relegated to the subjective “I”, and so it was bound to become a muddle as more and more philosophers came to realize that, like Russell’s muse about language and the destruction of the traditional correspondence theory of truth, statements made could not so easily be identified as either fact or opinion.

It becomes much more problematic when statutory, reputation, education and logical methodology are altogether discarded and made irrelevant, and so we come back full circle in questioning ourselves, the categorizations we have imposed, and how to get beyond the conundrum of modernity’s own making.

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 or Postal position, the question concerning “fact or opinion” is an important one, because the weaving of one into the other is queried in Standard Form 3112A, Applicant’s Statement of Disability.

How one’s answers are formulated and presented; whether they can be verified, established, “backed up with facts” as opposed to being left as mere subjective opinions — are all bundled up and contained within the questions asked, and how you will be answering them.

Fortunately, there is still remaining an approach and methodology of presenting facts as facts, and setting aside opinions and interpretations of the facts, and in preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it is important to recognize the difference still, and be cautious in completing SF 3112A in light of modernity’s obsessional disorientation on the difference between fact and opinion.

Just the facts, as stated by my opinion.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire