June 14, 2002
In the Matter of the Petition by
WAYNE L. HANSEN
205 N. Douglas Street
at
St. Jacob, IL 62281-1625
P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-33
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Wayne L. Hansen
205 N. Douglas Street
St. Jacob, IL 62281-1625
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Thomas J. Ford
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
1720 Market Street, Room 2013
St. Louis, MO 63155-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Wayne L. Hansen, filed a timely Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on January 8, 2002.[1] This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $364.65 from Petitioner's salary to recover for nonpayment of health benefits premiums.
Petitioner elected a hearing based on written submissions and the parties were given time to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer. Both parties filed additional material.[2] The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In 2000 and earlier Petitioner's family health insurance was carried by Aetna U.S. Healthcare under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). In September 2000, Aetna sent Petitioner notices informing him that certain changes were being made and that he needed "to choose a new health plan for 2001." (Two Aetna notices, dated September 28, 2000, attached to the Petition and the Answer).
2. The Aetna notices told Petitioner that he would have to complete a new SF2809 to make the change during the "Open Season" enrollment period from November 13-December 11, 2000. Specifically, one of the notices stated, "If you are an employee, please contact your personnel office and enroll in a new health plan by no later than December 11, 2000. If you do not change your enrollment by that date, you will not have any health benefit coverage in 2001." Petitioner received no notice from the Postal Service regarding the need to change his health plan or the procedures for doing so. (Aetna’s September 28, 2000 notice; Petitioner's Response to Answer, February 18, 2002).
3. Petitioner did not submit the SF2809 to his personnel office but communicated directly with Aetna and sent renewal information directly to Aetna.[3] (Petitioner's June 15 and June 26, 2001 letters, attached to Petition).
4. In February or March of 2001, Petitioner noticed that health insurance premiums were not being deducted from his pay. He reported this to his supervisor who called someone to check on it.[4] Nevertheless, Aetna continued to pay Petitioner's medical bills and prescriptions until June 2001. (Petitioner's June 15, June 26, and December 11, 2001 letters, attached to Petition).
5. On June 8, 2001, the Postal Service directed Aetna to terminate Petitioner's health insurance coverage effective January 13, 2001. Petitioner became aware that his insurance coverage had been terminated on June 14, 2001, when his son attempted to pick up a prescription. (Undated Aetna memo signed by Mary Dahl, attached to Petition; Petitioner's June 15, June 26, and December 11, 2001 letters, attached to Petition).
6. On June 22, 2001, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter informing him that his request to enroll or change an FEHBP enrollment outside the Open Season window was denied. (June 22, 2001 letter, signed by Kathy Williams, Human Resources Specialist, attached to Petition).
7. Petitioner appealed and on July 12, 2001, he was informed by letter that he would be allowed to make an FEHBP election retroactive to January 3, 2001, by completing a new SF2809. The letter also told Petitioner that he would be required to pay the premiums that had not been deducted from his salary. (July 12, 2001 letter, signed by Thomas E. Keefe, Jr., Manager, Human Resources, attached to Petition).
8. On July 23, 2001, the Postal Service directed Aetna to reinstate Petitioner's health insurance coverage effective January 13, 2001. (Undated Aetna memo signed by Mary Dahl, attached to Petition).
9. When Petitioner learned that his insurance coverage had been terminated, he purchased short-term coverage for his family at a cost of $894.56. (Petition, ¶3d; Answer, ¶3d; Petitioner's December 11, 2001 letter, attached to Petition).
10. On November 30, 2001, Petitioner was issued a Letter of Demand and an attached invoice for $364.65, to cover his portion of health insurance premiums for pay periods 3-17 of 2001. The Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets for the same amount was received by Petitioner on January 8, 2002. (Attached to Petition).
11. Regulations governing the FEHBP are found in 5 C.F.R. Part 890. Under 5 C.F.R. §890.502(a), an employee is deemed to incur an indebtedness to the United States in any pay period during which enrollment in the FEHBP continues but a deduction for, or direct payment of, the employee's share of the premium is not made.
DECISION
Even though the initial error was his, in not submitting the SF2809 to his personnel office as instructed, it is difficult not to have some sympathy for Petitioner on these facts. However, as was made clear early on in this case, a Debt Collection Act Hearing Official has no authority to grant a waiver. On the question of whether Petitioner owes the alleged debt, the rule stated in Finding #11 is clear. Petitioner's letters and the Aetna memo (see Findings #4 and #5) make it clear that he was enrolled in an FEHBP plan until June 8, 2001, and it is also clear that premiums were not deducted from Petitioner's salary for a period of time.
What is not clear is the number of pay periods for which Petitioner owes premiums, as Respondent has presented no evidence in this regard other than an invoice. A pay record submitted by Petitioner for pay period 24/2001 shows a $24.31 deduction for his health benefits plan. Fifteen pay periods at that amount would equal $364.65 - the alleged debt. As Petitioner's insurance was cancelled on June 8, 2001, however, and not reinstated until July 23, 2001, it is not clear why he should owe premiums for the period between those dates.
As Petitioner has not challenged Respondent's assertion that there was no withholding for health insurance premiums from pay period 3 through pay period 17 of 2001, the invoice is deemed to be accurate in that regard. I find it appropriate, however, not to assess Petitioner for the period between June 8 and July 23, 2001. That equates to approximately three pay periods, or $72.93 in premiums.
Subtracting $72.93 from the alleged debt of $364.65 leaves $291.72. The Petition is granted in part and denied in part. Respondent may collect $291.72 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[2] Action was suspended for a time to await a decision from the Accounting Service Center on Petitioner's request for a waiver of the alleged debt. That request was denied, after which the parties were given one final opportunity to submit additional material.