United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.A., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

New Orleans, LA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-95 

Issued: April 2, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 16, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 26, 2014 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of the case. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant received an overpayment in compensation in the 

amount of $31,296.11 for the period February 19, 2011 through March 23, 2014; (2) whether 

OWCP properly denied waiver of the overpayment; and (3) whether OWCP properly required 

repayment of the overpayment by deducting $179.00 every 28 days from appellant’s continuing 

compensation. 

On appeal appellant generally asserts that he does not understand the basis for the 

overpayment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, then a 28-year-old part-time regular letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on January 3, 2011 he injured his lower back while loading packages onto a 

mail truck. He stopped work that day. On February 10, 2011 the claim was accepted for lower 

back sprain, lumbar region. The employing establishment advised that appellant’s regular work 

schedule was 30 hours per week, 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, 

Thursday, and Saturday. The claim was accepted for lumbar sprain. 

In a February 9, 2011 report, Dr. Robert A. Steiner, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

advised that appellant should work light duty. Appellant received continuation of pay from 

January 3 to February 17, 2011 and thereafter filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7). The 

employing establishment provided an injury compensation worksheet that indicated appellant’s 

hourly wage was $26.22. It further advised that there was no work available within his 

restrictions and that the annual base pay for appellant’s step and grade was $52,463.00. 

A pay rate calculation dated March 14, 2011 indicated that, based on an annual full-time 

pay rate of $52,463.00, appellant’s weekly pay rate was $1,008.90 or $25.22 per hour, and he 

received wage-loss compensation at this full-time rate beginning February 19, 2011. OWCP 

verified this pay rate on August 1, 2011. At that time, the employing establishment reported that 

appellant had returned to work on April 18, 2011 and was sent home under the National 

Reassessment Process (NRP). Dr. Steiner continued to provide physical restrictions. Appellant 

was placed on the periodic compensation rolls in July 2011. 

On August 3, 2011 OWCP expanded the accepted condition to include displacement of 

lumbar intervertebral disc without myelopathy. Appellant was referred to vocational 

rehabilitation. Following vocational testing, a rehabilitation plan was approved for training plan 

toward a business associate of arts degree. He began training at Delgado Community College in 

January 2012. Appellant graduated with an associate degree in business in December 2013, and 

job placement was begun in January 2014. The vocational rehabilitation counselor identified the 

positions of supervisory personnel clerk, leasing agent, administrative assistant, apartment house 

manager, and office manager, as described in the Department of Labor, Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles, as meeting within appellant’s physical limitations. 

Appellant returned to part-time limited duty at the employing establishment, three hours a 

day, five days a week, on March 24, 2014. On May 14, 2014 OWCP ascertained that he was 

initially hired as a part-time regular employee, to work 30 hours a week. An OWCP payment 

memorandum dated May 27, 2014 indicated that, based on an hourly base pay rate when injured 

of $25.22 per hour, for 30 hours per week, appellant’s weekly pay rate when injured should have 

been $756.60. Following his return to work in March 2014, he received wage-loss compensation 

for three hours a day, based on the part-time weekly pay rate of $756.60. 

On May 29, 2014 OWCP proposed to reduce appellant’s compensation benefits based on 

his capacity to earn wages as a supervisory personnel clerk. Based on the opinion of Dr. Steiner, 

he could return to work with physical restrictions, and that the position was within the permanent 

restrictions identified by the physician. OWCP further noted that the labor market survey 

prepared by the vocational rehabilitation counselor found the position reasonably available in the 
3

local labor market and that the entry-level wage was $654.80, or $491.10 for 30 hours per week. 

On July 17, 2014 the rehabilitation counselor advised that part-time positions were available. 

By decision dated July 24, 2014, OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation benefits 

based on his capacity to earn wages as a supervisory personnel clerk, which yielded a 37 percent 

loss of wage-earning capacity. It applied the principles set forth in Albert C. Shadrick,

2

 as 

codified in section 10.403 of OWCP’s regulations,3 to determine the percentage of the 

employee’s loss of wage-earning capacity.4

 The date-of-injury pay rate on which compensation 

was based was $756.60 per week. 

On August 11, 2014 OWCP issued a preliminary finding that an overpayment of 

compensation in the amount of $31,296.01 had been created because appellant was compensated 

at an incorrect pay rate for the period February 19, 2011 through March 23, 2014. The attached 

memorandum did not explain how the overpayment was calculated other than to state he was 

compensated based on reported annual earnings of $52,463.00. It found him without fault in its 

creation, and he was provided an overpayment action request form and an overpayment 

questionnaire. Appellant was given 30 days to submit a response. A “Manual Adjustment 

Form” indicated that appellant was paid compensation of $125,078.30 when he should have 

received compensation of $93,782.29, yielding an overpayment of compensation of $31,296.01. 

Appellant did not reply to the preliminary determination. By decision dated 

September 26, 2014, OWCP finalized the preliminary overpayment decision, finding that he 

received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $31,296.01 and, while he was not at 

fault, he was not entitled to waiver of the overpayment because he failed to provide the requested 

information. The overpayment was to be repaid by withholding $179.00 from each 

compensation payment beginning October 19, 2014. With regard to “calculation of 

overpayment,” the decision explained “see enclosed documents.” The record does not show that 

any documents were enclosed. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Section 8102 of FECA provides that the United States shall pay compensation for the 

disability or death of an employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the 

performance of duty.5

 Section 8129 provides, in pertinent part: 

“When an overpayment has been made to an individual under this subchapter 

because of an error of fact or law, adjustment shall be made under regulations 

 2

 5 ECAB 376 (1953). 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.403. 

4 James M. Frasher, 53 ECAB 794 (2002). 

5

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 
4

prescribed by the Secretary of Labor by decreasing later payments to which an 

individual is entitled.”6 

Section 8129 provides, in pertinent part: 

“When an overpayment has been made to an individual under this subchapter 

because of an error of fact or law, adjustment shall be made under regulations 

prescribed by the Secretary of Labor by decreasing later payments to which an 

individual is entitled.”7 

A final decision of OWCP shall contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons.8 

With respect to overpayment decisions, OWCP must provide clear reasoning showing how the 

overpayment was calculated.9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The Board finds that OWCP did not adequately explain to appellant how the 

overpayment of compensation was created. The relevant documentation found in the case record 

includes information from the employing establishment, OWCP pay rate calculations, and an 

OWCP manual adjustment form. None of these, however, clearly explain to appellant why the 

pay rate for compensation purposes was changed from $1,008.90 to $756.60 per week. As 

OWCP did not fully explain its rationale for finding an overpayment and did not provide 

adequate documentation to support its explanation to appellant, the Board cannot affirm the 

overpayment decision. 

Neither the August 11, 2014 preliminary determination nor the September 26, 2014 final 

overpayment decision has any explanation regarding how the overpayment was calculated. As 

noted above, a final OWCP decision must contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons,10

and with respect to overpayment decisions, OWCP must provide clear reasoning to appellant 

showing how the overpayment was calculated.11 OWCP did not do so in this case. 

Accordingly, the case will be remanded to OWCP. On remand OWCP shall provide a 

decision with clear reasoning as to how any overpayment of compensation was created and, if so, 

provide a clear explanation of how it was calculated. It should fully explain its rationale and 

provide adequate documentation to support its explanation. After such further development as 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue an appropriate decision. 

 6 Id. at § 8129(a). 

7 Id. 

8 O.R., 59 ECAB 432 (2008); 20 C.F.R. § 10.126. 

9 M.S., Docket No. 08-2070 (issued September 11, 2009); see Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 6 -- Debt 

Management, Initial Overpayment Actions, Chapter 6.200.4.a(1) (June 2009). 

10 O.R., supra note 8. 

11 Supra note 9. 
5

Based on the Board’s finding, it is premature for the Board to address the remaining 

issues. 

The Board notes that on July 24, 2014 OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation based 

on his capacity to earn wages as a supervisory personnel clerk. Appellant did not appeal this 

decision with the Board.12 However, the wage-earning capacity determination, which utilized 

the Shadrick formula, indicated that the date-of-injury pay rate on which compensation was 

based was $756.00 per week. As noted above, OWCP has not provided a clear explanation to 

appellant regarding this change in appellant’s pay rate for compensation purposes. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds this case is not in posture for decision regarding whether an 

overpayment of compensation was created and, if so, whether the amount of the overpayment 

was properly created. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 26, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for 

proceedings consistent with this opinion of the Board. 

Issued: April 2, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 12 See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).