Tag Archives: one more opportunity to explain nexus

Connecting Two Important Dots in a FERS Disability Retirement Application

Posted on by
3

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is the nexus — the connections which are made between any two or more issues, concepts, evidence, etc. — which raises a Federal Medical Insurance Retirement application to meet the standard of required proof under the law. Such connections to be made are vital, and determine the success or failure of a Federal Medical Retirement application.

We have all encountered eccentric individuals in our lifetimes — whether of the proverbial “batty-aunt” who talks incessantly about things which nobody understands; or the “flighty friend” who can talk a mile-a-minute about a thousand disconnected issues all in one breath; or perhaps it is a chance-meeting with a stranger who, after a long conversation, one realizes didn’t make a bit of sense in anything that was said.

In conversation, one can engage in such language games which have little to no correspondence to reality, and not have to pay a price for such engagement.  In the world of Federal Disability Retirement, failing to make the necessary connections will most certainly lead to a denial of a Federal Retirement application.

Thus, the persuasive connection between one’s positional duties and the health conditions; the argumentative connection between the prevailing law and one’s factual statements; the impacting connection between the medical reports and the entirety of the submitted case; and multiple other connections — each must be carefully crafted.

In a world where we come upon a “noumenal” world (as Kant would state), and where our cognitive categories organize the disparate world we discover, establishing the necessary nexus between X, Y & Z is something which the Federal Disability Retirement applicant should never overlook.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal & Postal Disability Retirement: An Aristotelian Approach

Posted on by
Reply

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics has been the primary foundation for the Western paradigm of proper behavior in philosophy. Quite distinct from his obtuse Metaphysics, the ethical framework of Aristotle takes a pragmatic, almost Confucian approach to correct behavior — balancing context, temperament, timing and correct behavior in formulating a modulated encompassment of how one should act.

As with all things in life, there must be a “balance” — and a recognition that time and relative context of affairs must be taken into consideration before one should act. In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, one must similarly recognize that there is an insight into the balance of life before one can proceed with any action, whether it is an administrative action before the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, or before one’s own agency.

A Federal Disability Retirement application must be “proven”; as such, there is a distinction to be made between that which one “experiences”, and that which one can “prove”.

In such a context, sometimes a medical retirement packet may take some time in order to fully develop and evolve. Doctors may not be able to be approached immediately; instead, at the right time, and in the right manner, they may be willing to provide the necessary medical and professional support in order to make one’s Federal Disability Retirement case successful and productive.

The pragmatic approach which Aristotle used in his ethics is still relevant today: at the right time, in the proper context, and taking into consideration the temperament of others. In this way, success can be attained by possessing an insight and wisdom into the world of human affairs. This was the approach of Aristotle; and so it was with Confucius.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: Thank the Medical Professionals

Posted on by
Reply

If not for the doctors and medical professionals, FERS Disability Retirement would obviously not be a possibility.  Of course, one may make the self-evident statement that being supportive of a Federal Disability Retirement application is simply part of a doctor’s job; and, to some extent, that would be true.  Doctors should indeed be willing to write up supportive medical narrative reports for their patients.

Nevertheless, it is because of the doctor, the effort expended, the willingness to testify at a Merit Systems Protection Board Hearing, that the Office of Personnel Management even listens, or reverses a prior denial, and approves a disability retirement application.  Especially when a case gets denied twice by the Office of Personnel Management, it becomes crucial to have the cooperation of the treating doctor to testify in an MSPB Hearing.

This is normally done by telephone, thereby making it a minimal imposition upon the doctor’s time.  Indeed, I often only take a total of 30 minutes of the doctor’s time, including preparation and actual testimony, for an MSPB Hearing.  But the very fact that the doctor is willing to testify — to speak to the Administrative Judge directly to give his or her medical opinion — is often enough to convince OPM to change course, and grant the FERS Disability Retirement benefits.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill

 

OPM Disability Retirement: An Art Form (Part II of II)

Posted on by
Reply

In constructing the narrative of one’s story of the human condition and how it impacts the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it is important to weave the story such that it relates as a story.  Every story has a beginning and an end; every story must contain the elements of an effective narrative:  What has occurred; the symptoms; the diagnosis; how the symptoms impact upon one’s ability to perform one’s job; what are some of the essential elements of one’s job; as well as some impact upon one’s personal life.

Now, the Applicant’s Statement of Disability has appropriate sections to “fill in the blank”; but one’s story should not be merely a matter of filling in the blank; instead, it should be a narrative — a coordination of the story, consistent with the medical narrative report obtained from the doctor; and finally, a legal memorandum arguing the law.  The weaving of these elements, in my experience, constitutes what I consider to be a successful disability retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire