July 30, 2003

 

In the Matter of the Petition by

 

NATALIE A. MARTINEZ

P.O. Box 78377

 

at

 

Seattle, WA 98178-0377

 

P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-159

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Natalie A. Martinez

P.O. Box 78377
Seattle, WA  98178-0377

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Susan Houser

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

P.O. Box 90204

Seattle, WA  98109-9401

             

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

 

            Petitioner, Natalie A. Martinez, received continuation-of-pay benefits from Respondent, United States Postal Service, after suffering what she contended was an on-the-job injury.  After the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”) turned down Petitioner’s claim, Respondent demanded that she repay the continuation-of-pay benefits she had received.  Petitioner filed a Petition for Hearing under the Debt Collection Act after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

            Neither party requested an oral hearing, so the matter was submitted on the written record, and the parties were given an opportunity to submit additional evidence.  Respondent submitted a declaration explaining the calculation of the amount claimed.  Petitioner submitted a copy of a settlement agreement regarding an EEO claim she filed against Respondent.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  On August 18, 2000, Petitioner suffered what she contended was an on-the-job injury while working for Respondent at the Mercer Island, Washington Post Office (Respondent’s Exhibits (“RX”) 1, 9; Declaration of Ken W. Rickert (“Rickert Decl.”)).

2.  Petitioner filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits and was off work for approximately six weeks.  Under the federal workers’ compensation program applicable to Respondent, even though Petitioner’s entitlement to compensation for the alleged injury had not yet been decided, Respondent continued to pay Petitioner her regular pay (continuation-of-pay benefit) without reduction of her leave balances during the time she was off work (See Employee and Labor Relations Manual, Issue 16, August 2000, section 545.7).  Petitioner received net pay (continuation-of-pay benefit) of $3,239.84 during the period she was off work.  (RX 11, Rickert Decl. and Agency B, attached thereto).

            3.  Petitioner’s claim was denied by OWCP on December 28, 2000 (RX 7).  After a hearing, OWCP confirmed the denial in a decision dated July 20, 2001 (RX 9).[1]  

            4.  Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to repay the days she received continuation-of-pay benefits by using annual or sick leave, but she did not do so.  Accordingly, Respondent treated the continuation-of-pay benefits Petitioner received as an overpayment of pay.  (RX 3, 6).

            5.  Respondent demanded that Petitioner repay the continuation-of-pay benefits previously received (RX 3) and, on March 14, 2003, issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets stating its intention to collect from her salary the amount of $3,239.84 (RX 11).

            6.  Petitioner filed a Petition for Hearing under the Debt Collection Act (Petition dated March 27, 2003).

DECISION

In a telephone conference on April 28, 2003, 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.  The Hearing Official in a Debt Collection Act proceeding has no authority to review the decision of OWCP granting or denying a workers’ compensation claim.  See 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b); Martin v. United States Post Office, 752 F. Supp. 213, 217 (N.D. Tex. 1990), aff’d, 929 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 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 Petitioner was not entitled to retain the continuation-of-pay benefits she received.

In her written submission, Petitioner noted that her doctors and witnesses were willing to appear in this matter.  However, the time for requesting an oral hearing had passed, and Petitioner failed to indicate what evidence she proposed to present if an oral hearing were held.  Testimony regarding the medical condition or circumstances underlying her OWCP claim would relate to the merits of her OWCP claim, and, as discussed above, would not be accepted in this proceeding.  The EEO settlement agreement submitted by Petitioner has not been shown to have any relationship to the debt at issue here.

Respondent submitted payroll records for the applicable period of time and a declaration of the Seattle Injury Compensation Manager that demonstrate that Petitioner received continuation-of-pay benefits in the net amount of $3,239.84.  Petitioner did not challenge Respondent’s calculation.

            Accordingly, the Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $3,239.84 from Petitioner’s salary.

 

 

                                                                                                Norman D. Menegat

                                                                                                Administrative Judge


[1]  In this proceeding, Petitioner alleged that she had appealed the denial further within Department of Labor, a circumstance that would have justified delaying the Debt Collection Act proceedings until the OWCP claim had been finally resolved.  However, notwithstanding two Orders directing her to provide evidence of such appeal (see Orders dated April 29 and May 30, 2003), she failed to do so.