In the Matter of the Complaint ) October 9, 1996
Against )
)
RAYMOND URBANSKI )
520 Chester River Beach Road )
)
at )
)
Grasonville, MD 21638-1001 ) P. S. Docket No. PF 96-34
APPEARANCE FOR POSTAL SERVICE: Geoffrey A. Drucker, Esq.
Enforcement Division
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20260-1148
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Raymond Urbanski
520 Chester River Beach Road
Grasonville, MD 21638-1001
Respondent, Raymond Urbanski, has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge in which it was concluded that Respondent is liable to the United States Postal Service for a civil penalty of $1,500.00 under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. §3801 et seq. (hereinafter PFCRA or the Act). The Postal Service opposes the appeal and argues that the Initial Decision should be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
The Postal Service initiated this proceeding by serving a Complaint on Respondent alleging that Respondent had submitted to the Postal Service a false claim for compensation for destruction of his vehicle and tools and that he was therefore liable under the PFCRA for a civil penalty of $5,000.00.(1) Respondent filed an Answer to the Complaint in which he denied he had submitted a false claim to the Postal Service or that he was liable for any penalty under the Act.
Following a hearing at which both parties were given a full opportunity to present evidence, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision in which he concluded that Respondent had submitted to the Postal Service a false claim for compensation of the destruction to his vehicle and tools. As a result, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent was liable for a civil penalty of $1,500.00.
Respondent has not shown that a new hearing should be granted or that the
Initial Decision is erroneous as a matter of fact or law. The record reflects that
Respondent did not object to the withdrawal of counsel or seek a postponement of
the hearing, but that he knowingly and voluntarily elected to proceed to hearing and
final decision without counsel. The record also reflects that he was given a full
opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of his position, that even
though he did not prevail he adequately represented himself during the course of
the proceeding, and that the evidence presented supports the Initial Decision.
Accordingly, since the Initial Decision is supported by the record and no reasonable
grounds(3) or extraordinary(4) circumstances have been shown which justify
consideration of additional objection or evidence, the appeal is denied and the Initial
Decision is affirmed.
James A. Cohen Judicial Officer
2. Respondent's counsel filed a notice of withdrawal one day prior to the hearing. However, the notice advised that counsel had previously notified his client of his withdrawal. In a telephone conference on the day proceeding the hearing, Respondent did not seek a postponement, but rather advised that he would appear and represent himself.
3. The Judicial Officer will not remand a matter to the Presiding Officer for consideration of additional evidence unless a "party demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Judicial Officer that [the] additional evidence not presented at the hearing is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to present such evidence" to the Presiding Officer. 39 CFR §962.21(b)(4).
4. On appeal the "Judicial Officer shall not consider any objection that was not raised in the hearing unless the interested party demonstrates that the failure to raise the objection before the Presiding Officer was caused by extraordinary circumstances." 39 CFR §962.21(b)(3).