January 16, 2007

 

In the Matter of the Petition by                                

                                                                                                                                  

JOHNNIE HORTON                                                               

 

P.S. Docket No. AO 06-153

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:         

Glenn L. Smith, Esq.

                                                                                    

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:        

Gail Lewis

Manager, Labor Relations

 

 

DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

            Petitioner has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations applicable to collection of debts by the Government from its employees bars the Postal Service from pursuing collection of the debt alleged here.  The Postal Service responded to this issue in its Answer to the Petition.  The following findings of fact are based on information from the Motion and the Answer, and are not in dispute.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner worked at the Royal Oak, Michigan Post Office, and was injured there on November 14, 1991 during a shooting rampage by another postal employee.

            2.  Petitioner’s application for injury compensation through the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), U. S. Department of Labor, was approved.  Before his compensation claim was approved, Petitioner used annual leave and sick leave.

            3.  Petitioner has not worked since November 1992, and has applied for disability retirement.  The alleged debt is based on Respondent’s claim that Petitioner received dual compensation, i.e. from both the USPS and OWCP, for pay periods 1-14 of 1993.  (Invoice, August 9, 2006).

            4.  Petitioner first received notice of the Postal Service’s dual compensation claim not earlier than August 14, 2004.  (August 14, 2004 letter from Petitioner’s wife to USPS, attached to Petition; August 14, 2004 letter from Petitioner’s wife to OWCP, Ex. 1 to Answer).[1]

 

DECISION

            The statute of limitations on which Petitioner relies is found in the Administrative Offset provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (31 U.S.C. §3716).  These are the procedures by which the United States or one of its agencies, including the United States Postal Service, may withhold money otherwise payable by the Government to a person in order to collect a debt owed to the Government by that person.

            Subsection (e)(1) of 31 U.S.C. §3716 states, however, “This section does not apply to a claim under this subchapter that has been outstanding for more than 10 years.”  This 10-year limit is also set out in the Code of Federal Regulations at 5 C.F.R. §550.1106 – Time limit on collection of debts:

                        “Under the FCCS as defined in § 550.1103, agencies may not

            initiate offset to collect a debt more than 10 years after the Government’s

            right to collect the debt first accrued, with certain exceptions explained in

            that paragraph.”[2]

 

“Agency,” as defined in 5 C.F.R. §550.1103 includes the United States Postal Service. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently recognized the 10-year limit. 

 

”Moreover, the Debt Collection Act’s offset provisions generally do

not authorize the collection of claims which, like petitioner’s debts at

issue here, are over 10 years old.  31 U.S.C. §3716(e)(1).” 

 

Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142, ___; 126 S. Ct. 699, 701; 163 L. Ed. 2d 557, 561 (2005).  The Court went on to conclude that, because another statute specifically excluded collection of student loans from the 10-year limit, the Government’s claim in that case was not barred.

In Respondent’s reply to Petitioner’s motion, Respondent stated that there is no statute of limitations applicable to the Postal Service, and cited several decisions in Debt Collection Act cases.  In those cases, however, the delays were not more than approximately three years.  Those decisions simply held that there was no statutory limit barring a three year old claim, and that the evidence did not establish that the delays caused harm to the petitioners.  Respondent has not shown that the 10-year limit in 31 U.S.C. §3716 does not apply to the Postal Service. 

As it appears that the alleged debt arose in 1993 – Respondent has made no argument that it did not – and action to collect the debt was not initiated until August 2004, or perhaps August 2006, collection of the alleged debt is barred by the statute of limitations cited above.  Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.  Respondent may not collect the alleged debt by administrative offset.

 

 

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge

 


[1] It is likely that the correct date is August 14, 2006.  Other than the August 9, 2006 invoice, there is no document in the case file showing any actual notice that was sent to Petitioner.  The two letters from Petitioner’s wife, cited above, are nearly identical and are both dated August 14, 2004.  However, the OWCP reply to her (also part of Exhibit 1 to the Answer) implies that her letter is misdated, and should have been dated August 14, 2006.  Petitioner disputes the claim that he was dual compensated.

[2] FCCS is Federal Claims Collection Standards.