October 17, 2006
In the Matter of the Petition by
DIANE PIERCE
P.S. Docket No. DCA 06-118
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Diane Pierce
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Anthony Waters
Labor Relations Representative
United States Postal Service
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Diane Pierce, filed a
Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative
Salary Offsets from her supervisor on
Petitioner stated in her Petition that she wished a hearing based solely on written submissions. Accordingly, an Order dated August 28, 2006, issued after Respondent filed its Answer to the Petition, set a schedule for the parties to file additional evidence and argument. The Order also stated that we would hold a telephone conference on September 6, 2006, to discuss the procedures to be followed.
We were unable to reach Petitioner for the September 6 telephone conference, and were unsuccessful in getting Petitioner to respond to subsequent attempts to hold the telephone conference. In the meantime, Respondent filed additional evidence, in accordance with the August 28 Order.
It appeared from our mailing records that Petitioner had declined to claim some pieces of certified mail sent to her in connection with this case. These included the Postal Service Answer to the Petition, and attached documents, and the August 28 Order. It is the responsibility of any party in a case such as this to receive mail sent to that party at the address provided by the party. A party cannot avoid a decision in a case simply by refusing to pick up the mail. Nevertheless, Petitioner was given a final opportunity to submit evidence and argument on the merits of her case.
An Order dated September 19, 2006 gave Petitioner until October 2, 2006 to file evidence and argument, as described in the August 28 Order. Included with the Order were copies of Respondent’s Answer and the August 28, 2006 Order. The September 19 Order and the enclosures were sent by certified mail to the address provided by Petitioner, and at which she did receive some pieces of mail in connection with this case. However, the September 19 package was returned to this office as unclaimed mail.
The following findings of fact are based on the information contained in the Petition and the evidence filed by Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On May 25, 1999, Petitioner enrolled in Keystone East (ED1), under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), covering herself only. (Respondent’s Answer, Ex. 1).
2. Regulations governing the FEHBP are found in 5 C.F.R. Part 890. Part of the cost of an employee’s health insurance is paid by the employing agency and the remainder of the premiums is paid by the employee through payroll deductions each pay period. 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.[1]
3. In July 2002,[2] Petitioner began receiving workers compensation from the United States Department of Labor. In accordance with applicable FEHBP rules, the administration of her health benefits was transferred from the Postal Service to the Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP), Department of Labor. (Answer, Exs. 5 and 6).
4. On December 12, 2005, Petitioner attempted to change her FEHBP enrollment to a plan that would also cover her husband. In making the change, however, Petitioner erroneously elected Keystone Central (S41), rather than the correct plan, Keystone East Family Plan (ED2). Plan S41 is not available to
employees in Petitioner’s area. This error was noticed, and corrected, by the Postal Service Accounting Service Center in April 2006, and coverage under Plan ED2 was made effective January 7, 2006. The difference in premium rates between the two plans was $94.40 per pay period ($144.02 for ED2 v. $49.62 for S41). (Answer, Exs. 2, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 12).
5. During review of Petitioner’s FEHBP account occasioned by the erroneous election discussed above, it was also noted that the administration of Petitioner’s health benefits had not been transferred from OWCP back to the Postal Service when Petitioner returned to work in May 2005. Consequently, the required premium deductions had not been made from Petitioner’s salary from pay period 11 of 2005 through pay period 1 of 2006. The amount not paid was $17.16 in the first pay period, and $18.52 per pay period for 16 pay periods. (Answer, Exs. 2, 8 and 12).
6. During all the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner (and her husband since January 7, 2006) had health insurance coverage under one of the Keystone plans. (Answer, Ex. 15).
7. On May 24, 2006, Petitioner was issued a Letter of Demand for $313.48 for the OWCP related error ($17.16 x one pay period and $18.52 x 16 pay periods), and for $660.80 for the erroneous election related error ($94.40 x 7 pay periods). (Answer, Ex. 16).
8. On June 14, 2006, Petitioner was issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets for $974.28. (Answer, Ex. 18; Notice also attached to Petition).
DECISION
In her Petition, Petitioner did not dispute the fact that she had not paid the premiums discussed above. Her only reason given for contesting the alleged debt is that she did not use her health benefits plan during the time in question. This is not a basis for relieving her of the obligation to pay the premiums. Respondent’s evidence is sufficient to establish that insurance coverage was in effect and that the applicable premiums were not deducted from Petitioner’s pay.
The rule stated in Finding #2 is clear. Petitioner was enrolled in the FEHBP and she did not pay the premiums. Therefore, she incurred a debt. Administrative errors made by Respondent in implementing a health benefits plan do not relieve an employee of the obligation to pay the premiums.
The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $974.28 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge