July 16, 2007

 

P.S. Docket No. DCA 07-92

 

In the Matter of the Petition by                                                         

                                                         

RENEE L. BLANDING                                                                                                        

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:         

Renee L. Blanding

                                                                       

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:     

Anita D. Hayes

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

                                                                       

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Renee Blanding, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on March 5, 2007.  This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $3,848.91 from Petitioner’s salary to recover a salary overpayment.

Petitioner requested a hearing on written submissions.  This was discussed in a telephone conference with the parties on April 27, 2007, and the parties were given a timetable for filing additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer.  Both parties filed additional arguments and supporting documents.  An Order dated June 12, 2007 directed Respondent to look into Petitioner’s assertion that at least some of the debt has already been collected and to state its position as to how much, if any, of the alleged debt has been withheld from Petitioner’s pay.  Respondent filed no reply.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner suffered a job related injury on November 15, 2001.  She filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits through the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), U.S. Department of Labor.  (Petition; Answer).

            2.  While Petitioner was absent from work, from November 16, 2001 through January 22, 2002, she received her regular pay.  This is called “continuation of pay” (COP).  (Answer and documents attached).

            3.  On March 7, 2002, the OWCP issued a letter to Petitioner, informing her that, based on the available medical evidence, she was not entitled to the COP she had been paid from November 16, 2001 through January 22, 2002.  The letter also informed Petitioner that her agency would, at her option, charge her COP to her sick leave and/or annual leave, or would treat the COP as an overpayment to be collected back.  Finally, the letter also informed Petitioner of her appeal rights within the OWCP system.  (Letter attached to Petition and to Answer).

            4.  By letter dated April 5, 2002, the Postal Service informed Petitioner that a pay adjustment would be initiated to recover the COP, either by charging it to Petitioner’s leave or treating it as an indebtedness.  (Letter attached to Answer).

            5.  An invoice dated July 5, 2002 lists the hours in pay periods 25/2001 through 2/2002 during which Petitioner received COP.  The total amount of COP she received was $3,848.91.  (Invoice attached to Respondent’s May 11, 2007 submission).

6.  The record does not disclose what, if anything, happened regarding this matter in the intervening five years, but Petitioner was issued the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on March 3, 2007, and she filed her Petition for Hearing.

7.  From pay periods 22/2002 through 8/2003, a total of $1,088.50 was deducted from Petitioner’s pay for an indebtedness to the Postal Service.  (Pay stubs attached to Petitioner’s May 22, 2007 submission).

DECISION

Most of what Petitioner has submitted deals with the medical aspects of her injury claim and how the claim was handled by Postal Service personnel and the OWCP.  As was explained to the parties during an April 27, 2007 telephone conference, a Debt Collection Act Hearing Official has no authority to review a final OWCP decision, or to re-examine how an injury claim was handled.  The OWCP has its own appeal procedures for that purpose, of which Petitioner was fully informed.   The Postal Service’s burden of proof in a Debt Collection Act case such as this is only to show that the injury compensation claim was denied and that the amount of the COP debt was calculated correctly.

Petitioner has not challenged the fact that she received COP for the time period alleged, or that the OWCP later ruled that she was not entitled to COP.  As to how the specific amount of the alleged debt was calculated, Respondent filed nothing but an invoice.  However, as Petitioner has not challenged the accuracy of the amount alleged, the invoice is sufficient in this case to establish that amount.

 The Petition is denied.  Respondent is entitled to collect $3,848.91 from Petitioner’s salary.  Petitioner must be given credit, however, for any amount already collected.  Petitioner asserts that the $1,088.50 collected in 2002 and 2003 was to repay the debt in issue and, as Respondent did not reply to the Order of June 12, 2007, it is assumed that the amounts collected in pay periods 22/02 through 8/03 were to satisfy the $3,848.91 debt.  Therefore, Respondent may collect no more than the remaining $2,760.41.

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge