April 10, 2008
In the Matter of the Petition
by
VICTOR BUENROSTRO
1839 Rosewood Drive
P.S. Docket No. DCA 08-25
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Victor Buenrostro
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Leticia Capristo
Labor Relations Representative
United States Postal Service
FINAL DECISION
UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Victor Buenrostro, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated January 11, 2008, from his supervisor. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $620.95 from Petitioner's salary to recover unpaid health insurance premiums.
A hearing was held in San Francisco, California on March 18, 2008.[1] The Postal Service presented testimony from a human resources generalist. Petitioner testified in his own behalf. Both parties relied on documents that had previously been filed, and Petitioner submitted one additional document at the hearing. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. Petitioner was hired by the Postal Service in June 2006. He first enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) in November 2006. (Tr. 37).[2]
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.[3] (Tr. 8; PS Supp. Ex. 2).
3. Within about two days of his enrollment, Petitioner attempted to switch from one health benefits plan to another. Because it was not then an “open season” for making changes, he was unable to do this and, for reasons that are not clear, this resulted in his insurance coverage being cancelled. (Tr. 26-27, 33, 40; PS Ex. D).
4. Because Petitioner did not intend to cancel his insurance coverage, when he learned what had happened he and his supervisor made several telephone calls, and corresponded with the Postal Service Human Resources Shared Services Center, in an attempt to get his coverage reinstated. (Tr. 33-35, 43; PS Exs. B, E and F).
5. Petitioner’s health benefits coverage was reinstated on March 29, 2007, and was made effective retroactively to January 6, 2007. (Tr. 12-15; PS Ex. H; PS Supp. Ex. 1).
6. Petitioner’s share of the premium for each of the five pay periods during the retroactive application (pay periods 2-6 of 2007) was $124.19. This amount, totaling $620.95, was not deducted from his pay during this time. (Tr. 16, 23, 51;
PS Exs. C and J).
7. In accordance with the provisions of the FEHBP, the Postal Service paid its share of the premium for the five pay periods noted above. (Tr. 17, 31;
PS Ex. H).
8. Once the health benefits coverage was made retroactive to January 6, 2007, Petitioner was entitled to be reimbursed by his health care provider for any covered, out-of-pocket medical expenses that he might have incurred from January 6 through March 29, 2007. (Tr. 29-30).
9. Petitioner was issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets in the amount of $620.95 on January 11, 2008, and he filed his Petition for Hearing shortly thereafter. (PS Exs. A and B).
DECISION
The position of each party is quite simple. The Postal Service argues that Petitioner had FEHBP health insurance coverage from January through March of 2007, albeit retroactively, that the Postal Service paid its share of the premiums, and that, under the rules applicable to the FEHBP, Petitioner incurred a debt for his portion of the unpaid premiums.
Petitioner contends that he is being charged for a service that he did not have and did not use.
It is easy to have sympathy for Petitioner on the facts of this case. The problem that generated the alleged debt was not entirely of his making, and when he learned that his insurance had been cancelled he acted diligently to get it reinstated. However, Respondent’s evidence is sufficient to prove that the insurance coverage was in effect from January 6, 2007 forward, that the Postal Service paid its share of the premiums and that Petitioner did not. Also, there is no evidence that Petitioner was ever denied health care during this period of time, or that he expended any money for health care that he could not recover as noted in Finding #8.
Perhaps the Postal Service could have done more to make Petitioner aware of the retroactive nature of his health benefits once they were reinstated, but Respondent’s evidence has established a valid debt. The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $620.95 from Petitioner’s salary.
Bruce R.
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1]
The hearing was conducted by the undersigned
Administrative Law Judge via speaker telephone from
[2] References to the hearing transcript are “Tr._.” References to the documents filed with
Respondent’s Answer, and in a supplement to the Answer, will be “PS Ex._,” or
“PS Supp. Ex._.”
[3] 5 C.F.R. §890.501 and §890.502.