Appeal of PATSY L. TURNER -- P. S. Docket No. DCA 99-311

In the Matter of the Petition by	)  November 19, 1999
                                 	)
PATSY L. TURNER                 	)
5762 Ravenspur Drive, #401       	)
                                 	)
        at                       	)
                                	)
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-3513 	)  P. S. Docket No. DCA 99-311

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		Patsy L. Turner
					5762 Ravenspur Drive, #401
					Rancho Palos Verdes, CA  90275-3513

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Kathryn J. Robinson
					Labor Relations Specialist
					United States Postal Service
					7001 S. Central Avenue, Room 304
					Los Angeles, CA  90052-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Patsy L. Turner, received continuation-of-pay benefits after suffering what she contended was an on-the-job injury. Her workers’ compensation claim was eventually denied by the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs ("OWCP"), and Respondent demanded that she repay $570.05 in continuation-of-pay benefits she had received. Petitioner filed a Petition for Hearing under the Debt Collection Act in response to the demand for repayment.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about April 15, 1997, Petitioner suffered what she contended was an on-the-job injury while working for Respondent at its Worldway Airmail Facility in Los Angeles, California. She had an adverse reaction to fumes from a small explosion or fire that had occurred in the facility the previous day.

2. Petitioner filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits and was off work for several days. Under Respondent’s workers’ compensation program, Petitioner continued to receive her pay (continuation-of-pay benefit) without reduction of her leave balances during the time she was off work.

3. Petitioner’s claim was controverted by Respondent, and OWCP denied the claim on June 23, 1997. Petitioner appealed the decision within OWCP, and the claim was again denied on June 4, 1998.

4. On June 16, 1999, Respondent sent Petitioner a demand that she repay $570.05, representing the net continuation-of-pay benefits she received for the period she was off work after the incident. The letter was not designated a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, but the accompanying documents offered Petitioner an opportunity to request a hearing under the Debt Collection Act.

5. Petitioner filed a Petition for Hearing under the Debt Collection Act, seeking an oral hearing in Los Angeles.

DECISION

Petitioner has challenged only the denial of her claim by OWCP. She does not deny receiving continuation-of-pay benefits in the amount of $570.05, as claimed by Respondent. In a telephone conference, the hearing official advised Petitioner that she would not be permitted in this Debt Collection Act proceeding to challenge the correctness of the OWCP decision on the merits of her workers’ compensation claim. She was given an opportunity to raise other issues that might justify holding an oral hearing, but she did not file any response. Accordingly, her request for an oral hearing was denied, and both parties were given an opportunity to file additional evidence and argument. Neither filed anything further.

As Petitioner has been advised, the hearing official in a Debt Collection Act proceeding has no authority to review the decision of OWCP in granting or denying a workers’ compensation claim. The final decision of OWCP "is (1) final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact; and (2) not subject to review by another official of the United States or by a court by mandamus or otherwise." 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b). Therefore, the hearing official has no authority to consider the substance of Petitioner’s workers’ compensation claim or to review the determination of OWCP that she was not entitled to benefits for the injury in question. See Martin v. U.S. Post Office, 752 F. Supp. 213, 217 (N.D. Tex. 1990), aff’d 929 F.2d 697 (5^th Cir. 1991), cert. denied 500 U.S. 936 (1991); Mackay v. United States Postal Service, 607 F. Supp. 271, 274 (D. Penn. 1985). For purposes of this proceeding, it is conclusively presumed that she was not entitled to receive the continuation-of-pay benefits at issue.

Accordingly, as Petitioner has not challenged the amount of continuation-of-pay benefits Respondent demanded and has raised no other issues, her Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $570.05 from her salary.

					Norman D. Menegat
					Administrative Judge