April 24, 2003
In the Matter of the Petition by
MARY J. GRIFFITH
3501 Southwest Dunklin Avenue
at
Okeechobee, FL 34974-2149
P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-77
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Mary J. Griffith
3501 Southwest Dunklin Avenue
Okeechobee, FL 34974-2149
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Robin K. Sumner
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
Central Florida District
Post Office Box 999420
Mid-Florida, FL 32799-9420
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Mary J. Griffith, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her postmaster, dated February 12, 2003. This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $243.36 from Petitioner’s salary to recover unpaid health benefits premiums.
Petitioner requested a hearing on written submissions. The parties were given time to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer. Both parties did so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner enrolled in the Mail Handlers Standard Benefit Plan, as part of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) on May 8, 1999. The plan covered her husband. (Answer, Ex. 1).
2. Petitioner was divorced in June 2001 and changed her FEHBP plan to cover just herself. (Answer, Exs. 2-4).
3. In December 2001, Petitioner re-married. In February 2002, she completed a new FEHBP Election Form, to add her husband to the coverage. (Petition; Answer, Exs. 5-6).
4. For reasons unknown, there were administrative delays in processing the change to Petitioner’s coverage and the change, to include her husband, was not processed until October 2002. Coverage is retroactive to February 9, 2002, and Petitioner is entitled to make claims for services rendered for her husband from that date forward. (Petition; Answer, Exs. 7 and 10; Rowe Declaration).
5. In September 2002, Petitioner attempted to obtain a prescription for her husband and was told he was not covered on her health benefits plan. Petitioner paid full price, $13.79, for the prescription. (Petition; Petitioner’s April 3, 2003 submission and attachment).
6. On November 20, 2002, Petitioner was issued a Letter of Indebtedness for $243.36. An attached invoice indicated that the indebtedness was for the additional cost of health benefits covering her husband from pay period 5 through pay period 22 of 2002. (Answer, Exs. 11-12).
7. Regulations governing the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (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
Respondent’s position is that, although Petitioner was not at fault in causing the delay in changing her coverage to include her husband, once the change was made it was retroactive to February 2002. Therefore, Respondent argues, Petitioner’s husband was covered from that date and Petitioner must pay the full amount of the premiums.
Petitioner argues that she should not have to pay for coverage that was not in effect when she attempted to use it.
Despite the delay in making the change to Petitioner’s health benefits plan, the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that full coverage was put in effect retroactive to February 2002. Under the rule stated in Finding #7, Petitioner is obligated to pay the unpaid portion of the premiums.
The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $243.36 from Petitioner’s salary.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge