FERS Medical Retirement from OPM: Tomorrow and Beyond

It is the, “…and Beyond” which is of greater concern to most; for, the greater majority of us can handle the tomorrow-part because of its inherent specificity in project-required duties listed.

We are all trained to be competent in “checking off the list” of things to do:  This report to be filed; that memorandum to be drafted; the garbage to be taken out; the dishwasher to be unloaded, etc.  What happens after tomorrow — which became today just a few hours ago, and then of tomorrow which already comes with it a specific list of things to do — is that “beyond” which cannot be fathomed in the mental milieu which encompasses the residue of the day’s compacted detritus.

That is why most of us are unprepared for retirement; whether left unplanned, always in the category of that “beyond”, or “just because” — the fact is that human beings are so engrossed in the today and just beyond — of “tomorrow”  — that it is simply too much to consider the “and beyond” beyond just the beyond of tomorrow.

And thus, when a medical condition begins to become a chronic issue, a progressive deterioration that may last more than the “just beyond” of tomorrow and becomes an issue of “and beyond” — it begins to become a devastating forecast of the rift which may have to be.  “To be” — itself a concept of complexity, involving existence, quality of life, of what the future holds; all of these must somehow be contended with.

For  Federal Gov. employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition have become more than the problem of tomorrow, but constitute the “and Beyond”, contact a FERS Lawyer who specializes in Federal Medical Retirement Law in order to initiate the paperwork needed to take care of things in the “and Beyond” category.

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 Retirement for Federal Employees: Stuck in Another Time

We live for a time — perhaps as a child, or sometime in our youth — then move on.  Later, perhaps someone refers to the city, town or county of those prior years, or you see a photograph of the place; what do we recall?

The memory of a prior experience, a place we once visited, a house we grew up in; despite the years which ensue, the knowledge that change occurs daily, and the realization that nothing ever stays the same: Yet, we remain stuck in another time.  We go through life saying things like, “Oh, I should take you back there — it is such a quiet and peaceful place!”  Or: “When I was growing up…”.

It is like going back to a reunion of sorts — likely, nostalgia for places once existed, results in disappointment, precisely because one’s memory, stuck in another time, never meets up to the expectation of perfection abstracted from an imperfect world.

Medical conditions have somewhat of a similar effect.  We tend to walk about with the image of youth — of that vibrant, fearless individual who once walked this earth.  Perhaps you once jumped out of planes in the military; or lifted weights, trekked through the woods for miles on end; ran, jumped, did marathons and always maintained your “fitness”.

Then, a medical condition hits.  It becomes chronic.  It progressively debilitates.  Still, stuck in another time, what is one to do?

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, consider filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

For, being stuck in another time does not mean that you should remain in a place which is no longer compatible with the current conditions you face.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Medical Disability Benefits under FERS: Within the Wrong Context

We see and hear people using that excuse all the time: “I was taken out of context”; “You misunderstood me because you took my statement out of context”, etc.  Thus, a statement may be only partially quoted, or the physical misdeed may only be narrated without a “before or after”, making the “context” an important clue as to the truth of either the statement or the physical imagery.

For example, a person might say, “I love X, but he/she can sometimes be annoying because of his/her insistence upon doing things right.”  Now, if a person instead merely conveys that Y thinks that X is “annoying,” such a statement — while true — takes it “out of context” by leaving out the prefatory and “additional” statements made.  Certainly, the defense of “you took it out of context” is quite applicable, here.

Similarly, if a picture of X is taken — of a person clad only in his underwear, carrying a bat and looking like a madman — and is posted on the Internet with the subtitle: “Beware! Neighbor Stalks the Neighborhood Like a Madman!” — without explaining that he had been suddenly awakened by a noise downstairs, got up, saw two burglars breaking into his home, picked up a baseball bat and began chasing them outside of his home and — just as he stepped onto his front lawn in hot pursuit, the neighbor from across the street with whom he had had some unpleasantries over the years took a picture of him in this compromising appearance; well, you get the picture (yes, pun intended).  It would, of course, constitute a “taken out of context” moment, would it not?

Now, for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition no longer allows you to perform all of the essential elements of your job duties, your situation is somewhat like being “taken out of context”.  For, you were hired to do a job when you were healthy.  Once your health began to deteriorate, the “context” (i.e., your once healthy self) has been “taken out” to the extent that your medical conditions are no longer compatible with continuation in your job.  That is “The Law” of OPM Disability Retirement.

Contact a FERS Disability Retirement Lawyer and begin to put yourself into the proper context; for, within the wrong context, you are clearly no longer able to do your job.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire
FERS Disability Retirement Lawyer

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The respite

It is a time away; perhaps, a momentary lapse; that fifteen minutes of drinking one’s coffee while daydreaming, or lost in the saucer of one’s teacup in a vintage reflection where the slight crack in the china allows for memories to reclusively drift into never-ending smiles of forlorn embraces.

The respite is that time of getting away, of a break from this maddening world; of forgetting troubles for a moment; of not considering the financial and economic turmoils both of a personal nature and of a macro-sensibility that tends to haunt; and of a period of peace when we can just forget.  Maybe it is the 3-day weekend; or, perhaps just a memory of that time years ago, before screaming kids came upon us, prior to responsibilities and obligations squeezing the air out of pleasure and peace; or even a distance of yesterday or the day before.

Then, there are those who never have a respite; medical conditions tend to do that to us all.  They remind us of our mortality, our frailty, our inability to cope with the reality of a harshness when an isolated island echoes from dark caverns within.  Reality is a cruel thing; it quashes all dreams and hopes, and leaves one with a pit that is bottomless and without a sense of a future.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are unable to find that moment of respite because of a medical condition that prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it is time to consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, to begin the process of formulating and preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be ultimately submitted to the U.S.Office of Personnel Management.

Time is of the essence; time is precious; a time of respite is deserved by us all, and the turmoil of remaining at a job where the Federal or Postal employee can no longer perform is often the obstacle to the needed respite, and that is why filing for Federal Disability Retirement is so important.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Lawyer for Federal Disability Retirement Claims: Games

How do we learn how to play them?  If we play Game-X, must we follow “all” of the rules ordinarily known and ascribed in order for Game-X to still be recognizable as such, or does it become “Modified Game-X”.

If little Toby plays his first game, but doesn’t know the rules, yet nevertheless realizes that games are “fun” because everyone else is smiling and seemingly excited, does the fact that the kid-who-knows-no-rules plays without knowing the limits and boundaries of the game make him into a participant, or a pariah?  Of course, if he stamps his feet in the middle of the game and declares that he doesn’t like the game, and walks off (even taking with him the proverbial ball), can we declare him to be a poor sport, an okay-sport, or any sport at all if he never knew the rules of the game in the first place and therefore never quite played the “real” game?

How about dogs — do they “play” games?  The dog that chases the ball but doesn’t want to bring it back to the ball-thrower, and instead runs away with it — has he broken the “rules of the game”?  How is it that dogs play games with their masters without ever being able to explain what the parameters of the rules are?

Then, of course, there is the slight modification in the term “games”, as in “games that people play”.  We all know what that means — of being insincere, fake, or otherwise putting on a double-face.  Why is that called a “game”?  Is it because it is not real, and constitutes a copy of “make-believe”, much like playing a game when we all know that it is not reality that is being rehearsed; and yet, isn’t playing a game — any game — just a part of the reality of the world we live in?  Why, then, is life bifurcated between “games” and “reality”, when in fact both are real in the sense that we are living a life of surviving, making a living, etc.?  Yet, we constantly distinguish between “playing” and “living”, as if there is a difference to be identified.

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 any longer performing all of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal worker’s job, career or craft, the preparations needed to come to a point of realizing that an effective Federal Disability Retirement application must be filed, often requires a recognition that the proverbial “game” is “up”.

Whether the Supervisors and Managers at the Federal Agency or the Postal Facility are up to their usual “games” or not — of harassment, derisive comments, making your life “hell” by increasing the levels of pressure or stress, is really besides the point.  What matters is that life itself is not a “game” at all, and those who separate games from the daily living activities don’t really “get it”.

Medical conditions bring to the forefront the reality of living, and the harshness of how people treat other people.  Yes, preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, may seem like just one of those other “games” that have to be “played” — but the reality is that an effective OPM Disability Retirement application is a necessary part of life’s many facets of games and reality-based endeavors, such that the “rules of the game” always need to be consulted in order to “play” it well, and thus the first step is to learn the rules by consulting with an attorney who can advise on the rules themselves.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Disability Retirement from Working with the Federal Government: Originality

It is a frightening word; for, it is what we all strive for, yet almost always fall short, fail or attempt to justify and obfuscate for not quite reaching that goal.

Fortunately, there are at least two, but likely an infinite number of, avenues of avoidance in being charged with its lack:  First, and fortunately, plagiarism is not a criminal offense and, moreover, no one really seems to care except in the most egregious of instances, and furthermore, for those professing to be constrained by Catholic orthodoxy, it isn’t even a venial sin, let alone a mortal one.

Second (and ad infinitum as to the corollaries, so that we do not have to go beyond the phrase, “And secondly” or engage in the Internet’s most popular search engine contrivances that always includes, “Five ways to..” or the “Ten most important…”), there is always an excuse for its lack, beginning with:  “Well, I did the best I could”; “It’s not so important to be unique as to feel good about yourself”, and the dead ringer:  “There is no originality left; everything has already been spoken for.”

Is that why the period between “the original” and “the remake” keeps becoming shorter and shorter?  Is it an unavoidable truism that – from themes and plots for stories, novels and other similar genres, to television shows and movies, as well as songs and artworks – there is a limit of finite constraints that even human creativity cannot avoid?

History reveals that originality of profound dimensions will arise in spurts and burps; from Continental Europe’s juggernaut of painters and writers, to America’s continuum of astounding literary greats including Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Updike to Vonnegut; and, in the great tradition and power of the Russian novelists and playwrights, from Dostoevsky to Chekhov and multiple others, without even reaching back to centuries preceding, the originality of works steeped in profound insights cannot be denied.

Has modernity followed a similar course, or has the bludgeoning of unceasing informational overload tempered the capacity of human creativity?

There is a known, coy quip about the formulaic recipe for great literary or visual works:  “Have a terrible childhood, and write about it.”  Thus, such a perspective is reinforced by Dickens and other coconspirators.  A cousin to that rule is to live through political turmoil under repressive circumstances, and the validation for that is revealed by Eastern European and South American writers of current vintage, especially now that translations have been improved and perfected.

For Federal Gov. employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the concern about originality should enter but only in a cursory manner.

Facts must guide; the evidence will prevail.

In preparing answers to the connivances of questions required on SF 3112A (a form known as the Applicant’s Statement of Disability), do not try to be “original” in writing the narrative of one’s life, medical conditions and the impact upon one’s positional duties.

Remember always the other quip that must be recognized:  That each individual is already a paradigm of the original, and while the narrative engaged may not always be unique, and the reviewer at OPM may have “seen one and seen them all”, it is nevertheless one of a kind whether recognized and acknowledged by others, precisely because the life-experiences the Federal Disability Retirement applicant has endured has been nothing but original in the first instance.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: When the superior argument no longer prevails

The potentiality of applying “jury nullification” opened the door to defiance, in a society constructed upon recognition, application and enforcement of “the law”; but of course, one may argue that such wholesale rejection of a conceptual construct deemed immoral or otherwise unfairly prejudicial, is itself a moral judgment which is allowable.

Would anyone argue that a jury which refused to convict during a trial in a repressive and totalitarian regime — say, in North Korea today, or during the Stalinist era — constituted “jury nullification”?  Or, would one simply declare that “the people” rightly and collectively decided to “stand up” against injustice, and applied a higher standard of the law — one which transcends the state’s attempt to impose an otherwise self-declared code of injustice by means of fiat and force?  It all depends upon the perspective; for, when the state empowers a group of individuals to possess, grant and apply the power of judgment rendered in the form of a verdict, then that collectivism of declared consensus constitutes the rightness or folly of a moral code itself.

In the end, the term itself is likely inappropriate; for the concept of “jury nullification” necessarily implies something underhanded or nefarious, as if the “jury” acting to “nullify” the law is somehow suspect, when in fact it is a declaration of rights asserted by means of granted power to do so.  The jury, by definition, is a law unto itself, as recognized by the state, and is therefore wholly independent and cannot be castigated for undertaking the very duty for which it was appointed to perform.

Now, as to whether or not it was receptive to, and embraced a lesser argument, as opposed to a superior one, is a fundamentally different question.  Were emotions swayed?  Did the eloquence of the opposing side overwhelm?  Did rationality and force of evidence persuade, or did the defendant’s mother back in the corner where spectators sat, weep silently and blow her nose into a soiled kerchief just enough to draw the attention of wandering eyes left pondering the fate of a devastated family? And does rationality always have to rule?  By what criteria do we demand that rationality always rule the emotive and appetitive?  Is it based upon the ancient code derived from Plato and Aristotle, of the various parts of the soul where the mind should govern the cosmos of the barbaric nature of our base selves?

But if circumstances and situations rule the day — such that in a “State of Nature” it is more advantageous for an individual to survive by pursuing instinct and animalistic aggressiveness, but in the more refined “Social Contract” basis the forms of civility and restrained interaction becomes the normative and accepted foundation, is not judgment of a fellow man a netherworld of intersecting universes, where the contradictory combining of war (a form thereof, as in a trial) and civility (of a jury deliberating in the quietude of a sequestered room) clash in culminating in a momentous fate of judgment?

The conclusion from modernity has already been rendered, of course; for, in the end, young people today care not for the force of rational argumentation, but rather, whether it “feels good”.  What reverberating consequences does such a force of change have upon society as a whole, and more specifically, for the Federal or Postal worker of today who must consider arguing to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management that the Federal Disability Retirement application should be approved?

Superior arguments, of course, should always be employed; and the Federal or Postal worker should never underestimate the power of legal persuasion, or the citing of relevant laws, statutes and applicable regulations.  But there is a distinction to be made, between demanding and dereliction of decision-making.  The former is to use a hammer; the latter is to posit a systematic methodology of courteously opening the door for recognizing the sunlight of “being right”.

For the Federal or Postal worker who wants to submit an effective Federal Disability Retirement application to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal worker is under CSRS, CSRS Offset or the FERS retirement system, remember that the concept of “jury nullification” applies only when the right to decide is somehow deemed improper or unsanctioned; but when it comes to a bureaucracy which possesses the sole power to decide, it is an inapplicable construct, and must be approached in a manner more akin to the grieving mother whose murderous son suddenly appears with a suit and tie for the first time in his hideous life, and speaks eloquently of his undying love for family and the victim upon whom he perpetrated his crime, and when the wink-and-nod between son and weeping mother remains unnoticed but for the love forged in treachery, justice yet smiles even in verdicts which betray the greater society.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

b

OPM Medical Retirement: The loss of linguistic efficacy

If words are to have meaning, then the care in using them must be protected.  It is, of course, the conditional which must be accepted as true, in order for the contingency to be acted upon.  In a society where populism prevails, and in accepting a false sense of what “democracy” and “equality” have come to mean, the suffering consequences of a nation’s language becomes destroyed in subtle tones of disengagement.  Words lose their efficacy by multiple methods: overuse; misuse; refusal to allow for an expected impact to occur; or non-use by neglect and disregard.

Are there negative consequences for the loss of linguistic efficacy?  Or, perhaps such concerns are merely esoteric turmoils relegated to the intellectual temper tantrums reserved in ivory towers, and not of any significance or relevance to the greater population at large?  The English of Shakespeare is certainly not the mother tongue of modernity, and the volume of utterances fail to replace the lack of cogency in today’s discourse.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who intend to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the care in the selection and positing of words is important, despite the loss of such status and stature of their force and effect in general.  To prepare an effective Federal OPM Disability Retirement application — one which is both persuasive, as well as “true” — requires the careful crafting of a cogent compilation of multiple narratives, appealing to logic, factual coherence, and force of comprehension.  It must defy that which we see in today’s society — of the loss of linguistic efficacy.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The Default Mode Network (DMN)

In neuroscience, it represents various regions in the brain which engage in intersecting activities beyond a normal volume of interplay, and like a superhighway of liveliness, the correlative process of functioning is maintained at an exponential level of rapid-fire inter-connectivity when the human brain is not focused upon a particular task in the “outside” world, but rather, when engaged in the insular universe of daydreaming, thinking, or wandering in meandering thoughts.

Thus, the high-functioning network of synapses and neuro-cognitive hot-wires activates by default when one is at a “wakeful rest” — meaning, when the eyes are open, but focused inward as opposed to the outer environment of external stimuli and purposeful, productive activity.

The default mode is most active when the mind is passive and at rest; it is the anomaly of the brain, where the opposite occurs in relation to a subconscious characteristic of the organism.  It is this insular conundrum which also powers other mechanisms; and so when an electronic device falters, we engage a “default” mode where the inner sanctum of the wiring regenerates by reverting back to its original existence.

It is of interest that evolution favored such activity of the brain, where it awaits the quietude of self-reflection on the outside (at least in appearance, if not in reality), when the sudden increase of activity is triggered on the inside.  But that type of convex reflection of self paralleling its very opposite is what often happens in all of life; even in the rather mundane example of turning one’s back, when the knives become sharper and the stabbers come out of their cubbyholes.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition may necessitate filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the workings of the Default Mode Network is instructive in the following way:  For the Federal or Postal employee, there is always activity even in a state of non-activity.  Productivity as judged by the “outside” world is not the only “means-testing” modality to go by.  Other things matter — sometimes hidden, otherwise overtly exposed.

The fact that you may suffer on the outside may not impact others into any greater activity of sympathy or empathetic responsiveness.  What matters in the end for the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker who can no longer perform all of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional duties, is to engage the outer world in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with OPM, in order that one may attain a level of wakeful rest which the Default Mode Network is seeking to accomplish.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire