United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MANAGER, 

COLUMBUS PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION 

CENTER, Columbus, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0530 

Issued: July 29, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 20, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 29, 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 this case. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant received a $3,156.49 overpayment of 

compensation; and (2) whether OWCP abused its discretion in denying waiver of recovery of the 

overpayment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that appellant, a parcel post distribution machine clerk, sustained 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of his repetitive work duties. Appellant stopped work 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

on February 14, 2013 to undergo left carpal tunnel release authorized by OWCP. The procedure 

was performed on February 15, 2013. 

By letter dated April 12, 2013, OWCP advised appellant that he would be receiving 

continuing wage-loss compensation covering a 28-day period. Appellant was advised that he 

must notify OWCP immediately upon his return to work and, if he worked for any portion of the 

period covered by a payment, he must return the payment to OWCP. 

On August 2, 2013 appellant underwent authorized right carpal tunnel release. 

On January 13, 2014 appellant advised OWCP that he had returned to full-time limitedduty work on December 10, 2013, but received a compensation payment. OWCP advised him 

not to spend the money and that he would receive a letter stating an overpayment amount that he 

would need to submit as repayment. 

By letter dated February 14, 2014, OWCP made a preliminary determination that 

appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $3,156.49 from 

December 10, 2013 to January 11, 2014 because he continued to receive disability compensation 

after his return to work. It explained the calculation of the overpayment and found that he was 

without fault in its creation because he provided prompt notification about his receipt of 

compensation on January 13, 2014 in an effort to return these funds. OWCP requested that 

appellant complete an overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20) and submit 

supporting financial documents to assist OWCP in its evaluation of appellant’s eligibility for 

waiver. Additionally, it notified him that, within 30 days of the date of the letter, he could 

request a telephone conference, a final decision based on the written evidence, or a 

prerecoupment hearing. 

On March 10, 2014 appellant requested a telephone conference with OWCP. He 

disagreed with the fact and amount of the overpayment. Appellant requested waiver of 

repayment, contending that repayment of the overpayment would cause him financial hardship. 

On May 10, 2014 appellant completed a Form OWCP-20 and submitted accompanying 

financial documents. He listed his monthly income as $5,200.00. Appellant listed his nine-yearold grandson as a dependent. He listed monthly expenses as $1,123.51 for rent or mortgage, 

$450.00 for food, $700.00 for clothing, $1,000.00 for utilities, $600.00 for other expenses, and 

$288.14 and $86.52 for credit union loans, totaling $4,248.18. Appellant noted that he had no 

cash on hand, $81.00 in a checking account, $2.34 in a savings account, and $1,500.00 for the 

value of other personal property and other funds. He further noted $35,238.00 in stocks in a 

Thrift Savings Program account. 

During an October 7, 2014 telephone conference, appellant stated that his wife was his 

only dependent. He also stated that his rent/mortgage was currently $1,258.00. Appellant 

reported that the $288.14 payment previously noted on his Form OWCP-20 was for his 

daughter’s car. He also reported $700.00 for a second car payment and $385.00 for a third car 

payment. Appellant further reported $82.00 for a personal loan, $178.00 for a credit union credit 

card, $33.00 for a Dick’s Sporting Goods credit card, and $25.00 for a Lowe’s credit card. 

In a December 29, 2014 decision, an OWCP hearing representative finalized the 

$3,156.49 overpayment, finding that appellant was not entitled to waiver of recovery of the 
3

overpayment because his monthly income of $5,200.00 exceeded his allowable monthly 

expenses by $425.00. He noted appellant’s monthly expenses as $1,258.00 for rent/mortgage, 

$450.00 for food, $700.00 for clothing, $1,000.00 for utilities, $600.00 for other expenses, 

$82.00 for a personal loan, $700.00 for a car payment, and $385.00 for a second car payment. 

The hearing representative disallowed $400.00 for clothing and $288.14 for appellant’s 

daughter’s car note as they did not constitute ordinary and necessary living expenses. He 

disallowed the three credit card payments as they were already included in ordinary and 

necessary living expenses. The hearing representative calculated $4,775.00 in allowable 

monthly expenses. He determined that appellant’s monthly income exceeded his monthly 

expenses by $425.00 and directed repayment of the overpayment in the amount of $150.00 per 

month. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Section 8102(a) 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 his duty.2

 Section 8129(a) of FECA 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.”3 

Section 8116 of FECA defines the limitations on the right to receive compensation 

benefits. This section of FECA provides that, while an employee is receiving compensation, he 

or she may not receive salary, pay or remuneration of any type from the United States, except in 

limited circumstances.4 OWCP regulations provide that compensation for wage loss due to 

disability is available only for any periods during which an employee’s work-related medical 

condition prevents him or her from earning the wages earned before the work-related injury.5 An 

employee is not entitled to compensation for total disability after returning to full-time work.6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The Board finds that appellant has received an overpayment of compensation in the 

amount of $3,156.49 for the period December 10, 2013 to January 11, 2014. The record 

supports that he continued to receive total disability compensation from the date of his return to 

work on December 10, 2013 to January 11, 2014. For this period appellant received 

compensation in the amount of $3,156.49. As he was not entitled to compensation after his 

 2 Id. at § 8102(a). 

3 Id. at § 8129(a). 

4 Id. at § 8116(a); R.H., Docket No. 09-1981 (issued June 11, 2010). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.500. 

6 M.J., Docket No. 09-469 (issued August 24, 2009). 
4

return to work, OWCP properly found that an overpayment in compensation in the amount of 

$3,156.49 had been created.7

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP may consider waiving an overpayment only if the individual to whom it was 

made was not at fault in accepting or creating the overpayment.8

If OWCP finds that the recipient of an overpayment was not at fault, repayment will still 

be required unless: (1) adjustment or recovery of the overpayment would defeat the purpose of 

FECA; or (2) adjustment or recovery of the overpayment would be against equity and good 

conscience.9

Recovery will defeat the purpose of FECA if both: (a) the individual from whom 

recovery is sought needs substantially all of his current income (including periodic benefits 

under FECA) to meet current ordinary and necessary living expenses; and (b) the individual’s 

assets do not exceed the resource base (including but not limited to cash, the value of stocks, 

bonds, savings accounts, mutual funds) of $4,800.00 for an individual or $8,000.00 for an 

individual with a spouse or one dependent, plus $960.00 for each additional dependent. The first 

$4,800.00 or more, depending on the number of claimant’s dependents, is also exempted from 

recoupment as a necessary emergency resource. If an individual has current income or assets in 

excess of the allowable amount, a reasonable repayment schedule can be established over a 

reasonable, specified period of time. It is the individual’s burden to submit evidence to show 

that recovery of the overpayment would cause the degree of financial hardship sufficient to 

justify waiver.10 An individual is deemed to need substantially all of his or her income to meet 

current ordinary and necessary living expenses if monthly income does not exceed monthly 

expenses by more than $50.00.11

Recovery of an overpayment is considered to be against equity and good conscience 

when any individual who received an overpayment would experience severe financial hardship 

in attempting to repay the debt.12 Recovery of an overpayment is also considered to be against 

equity and good conscience when any individual, in reliance on such payments or on notice that 

such payments would be made, gives up a valuable right or changes his position for the worse.13 

 7

 5 U.S.C. § 8116(a); 20 C.F.R. § 10.500. 

8

 20 C.F.R. § 10.433(a). 

9 Id. at § 10.434. See 5 U.S.C. § 8129(b). 

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 6 -- Debt Management, Initial Overpayment Actions, Chapter 

6.200.6(a) (June 2009). See Miguel A. Muniz, 54 ECAB 217 (2002); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.436, 10.437. 

11 Sherry A. Hunt, 49 ECAB 467, 473 (1998). 

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.437(a). 

13 Id. at § 10.437(b). 
5

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

As OWCP found appellant without fault in the creation of the overpayment of 

compensation, waiver must be considered and repayment is still required unless adjustment or 

recovery of the overpayment would defeat the purpose of FECA or be against equity and good 

conscience.14 

During the October 7, 2014 telephone conference, appellant stated that his wife was his 

only dependent. He also stated that his rent/mortgage was currently $1,258.00. Appellant 

reported three car payments: $288.14 for his daughter’s car, $700.00 for a second car payment, 

and $385.00 for a third car. He further reported $82.00 for a personal loan, $178.00 for a credit 

union credit card, $33.00 for a Dick’s Sporting Goods credit card, and $25.00 for a Lowe’s credit 

card. 

In a December 29, 2014 decision, an OWCP hearing representative finalized the 

$3,156.49 overpayment, finding that appellant was not entitled to waiver of recovery of the 

overpayment because his monthly income of $5,200.00 exceeded his allowable monthly 

expenses by $425.00. He accepted the claimed monthly expenses of $1,258.00 for 

rent/mortgage, $450.00 for food, $300.00 for clothing, $1,000.00 for utilities, $600.00 for other 

expenses, $82.00 for a personal loan, $700.00 for a car payment, and $385.00 for a second car 

payment. The hearing representative disallowed $400.00 for clothing and $288.14 for 

appellant’s daughter’s car note, finding that they were not ordinary and necessary living 

expenses. The Board finds that the hearing representative properly disallowed these expenses as 

it is appellant’s burden of proof to establish that the expenses are ordinary and necessary.15 The 

hearing representative also properly disallowed the three credit card payments because they were 

already included in ordinary and necessary living expenses.16 He determined that appellant had 

$4,775.00 in monthly expenses. The hearing representative directed repayment of the 

overpayment in the amount of $150.00 per month. 

The Board thus finds that, as appellant’s monthly income exceeds his documented 

reasonable monthly expenses by more than $50.00, he is not entitled to waiver as he does not 

need substantially all of his income to meet current ordinary and necessary expenses. 

Appellant does not argue, and the record does not establish, that recovery of the debt 

would be against equity and good conscience. He did not show that he gave up a valuable right 

or changed his position for the worse in reliance on the overpayment. 

Because appellant has failed to establish that recovery of the overpayment would defeat 

the purpose of FECA or be against equity and good conscience, the Board finds that he has failed 

to show that OWCP abused its discretion by refusing to waive the $3,156.49 overpayment. 

With respect to recovery of the overpayment in compensation, the Board’s jurisdiction is 

limited to reviewing those cases where OWCP seeks recovery from continuing compensation 

 14 Id. at §§ 10.436, 10.437. 

15 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, supra note 10 at Chapter 6.200.6(a)(3) (June 2009). 

16 Id.
6

benefits under FECA.17 As appellant is no longer receiving wage-loss compensation, the Board 

does not have jurisdiction with respect to the recovery of the overpayment under the Debt 

Collection Act.18

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the amount 

of $3,156.49 for the period December 10, 2013 to January 11, 2014. The Board further finds that 

OWCP did not abuse its discretion in denying waiver of recovery of the overpayment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 29, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 29, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 17 Cheryl Thomas, 55 ECAB 610 (2004). 

18 Id.