United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.F., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, CAMP 

SMEDLEY D. BUTLER, Okinawa, Japan, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-165 

Issued: September 25, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

On October 30, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from the July 19, 2013 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which found that he received an 

overpayment of compensation in the amount of $3,605.65 because he worked while receiving 

total disability compensation. OWCP also denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment. 

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 this case. 

 This case has previously been before the Board.2

 The Board found that OWCP, in its 

February 23, 2010 decision, did not follow proper procedures in that it did not give appellant 

sufficient notice of its preliminary finding of overpayment. The Board further found that the 

record was devoid of official records indicating appellant’s earnings, so it was not clear how 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Docket No. 10-2163 (issued March 18, 2011). On April 14, 2003 OWCP accepted that appellant, then a 46-

year-old athletic director, suffered from a respiratory illness due to poor circulation in his office diagnosed as 

hypersensitive pneumonitis. It declared an overpayment of compensation as appellant continued to receive 

compensation benefits for total disability as opposed to partial disability based on his part-time actual earnings as an 

imaging specialist at Ritz Camera. 
2

OWCP arrived at the amount of the overpayment. Accordingly, the Board set aside OWCP’s 

overpayment decision and remanded the case for further consideration consistent with the 

decision. The facts as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are hereby incorporated by 

reference.

On June 24, 2011 OWCP made a preliminary determination that appellant was overpaid 

in the amount of $3,605.65 because her worked while receiving temporary total compensation. 

It noted that, for the period August 2007 through January 2009, appellant earned a total of 

$9,028.00 at Ritz Camera. OWCP noted that, for this period, appellant received a total of 

$43,587.65 in compensation. It determined that the difference between these figures, $3,605.65, 

was the amount of the overpayment. OWCP further determined that appellant was with fault in 

the creation of the overpayment because he received dual benefits. 

By letter to OWCP dated May 3, 2013, appellant contended that the deductions from his 

compensation had not stopped despite the Board’s March 18, 2011 decision. He also contended 

that OWCP has not been in contact with him regarding this matter; that he has been unable to 

reach the claims examiner; and that he had not received the second preliminary determination 

until reaching an operator at OWCP on April 15, 2013. Appellant argued that there were still 

discrepancies in the amount of benefits he should have received following the appeal, the total 

amount of overpayment and the amount actually paid back to date. 

By decision dated July 19, 2013, OWCP finalized its preliminary determination and 

found that appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $3,605.65 for 

which he was at fault as he knew or should have known he was not entitled to these benefits. In 

making this decision, OWCP indicated that it had not received a response from appellant to its 

preliminary decision and that he had not contested the finding. 

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that OWCP never addressed 

appellant’s letter of May 3, 2013 in its final overpayment decision of July 19, 2013; in fact, 

OWCP indicated that appellant had not contested its finding of overpayment. As the Board’s 

decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial that OWCP address all 

relevant evidence and argument received prior to the issuance of its final decision.3

 In this 

instance, OWCP erred as it failed to consider appellant’s arguments presented in his May 3, 2013 

letter.4

 As it failed to address all relevant evidence and argument before it at the time of its 

decision, the case is remanded for a proper review and issuance of an appropriate final 

overpayment decision. 

 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d); see William A. Couch, 41 ECAB 548, 553 (1990). 

4 William McKennon, 51 ECAB 145 (1999). 
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 19, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case is remanded for further action 

consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: September 25, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board