United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.W., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Baton Rouge, LA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1163 

Issued: January 13, 2016 

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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 27, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 13, 2015 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.2

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP properly determined that appellant received an 

overpayment of compensation in the amount of $1,286.70 for the period October 2 to 

November 16, 2013; and (2) whether appellant was at fault in the creation of the overpayment, 

thereby precluding waiver of recovery of the overpayment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence with her appeal. The Board’s jurisdiction, 

however, is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Therefore, additional 

evidence cannot be considered by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 510.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 7, 2012 appellant, then a 27-year-old transportation security officer, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her lower back when 

lifting bowling balls. On August 30, 2012 OWCP accepted her claim for sprain of the lumbar 

region of the back. It placed appellant on temporary total disability and paid compensation and 

medical benefits. On December 11, 2012 appellant was placed on the periodic rolls. 

On February 5, 2015 OWCP made a preliminary determination that appellant had been 

overpaid in the amount of $1,286.70 because she had returned to part-time work on October 2, 

2013 but was still being paid for full loss of wages through November 16, 2013. It noted that she 

was paid $1,595.20 every 28 days. OWCP divided $1,595.20 by 28 days and multiplied this 

figure by 46 for the days appellant received an overpayment to equal $2,620.69 for the period 

October 2 to November 16, 2013. It then determined that she was entitled to 133 hours of 

compensation for the period October 2 through November 16, 2013, which would equal 

$1,333.99. Subtracting $1,333.99 from $2,620.69, OWCP determined that appellant received an 

overpayment in the amount of $1,286.70. It also made a preliminary determination that she was 

at fault in the overpayment because she should have known that she was not entitled to full 

compensation once she returned to part-time work with the employing establishment. 

Although there is some conflicting evidence with regard to appellant’s work hours, the 

record contains the time and attendance forms for this period. For pay period 19 she worked 16 

hours, for pay period 20 she worked 40 hours and received 8 hours holiday pay in addition to the 

40 hours, for pay period 21 she worked 35 hours, and for pay period 22 she worked 32 hours and 

received an additional 4 hours of holiday leave. The time and attendance sheets also indicate 

that appellant was charged LWOP for 145 hours from October 2 through November 16, 2013. 

The CA-7 forms filed by appellant, however, are inconsistent with these numbers. 

On February 23, 2015 appellant requested a prerecoupment hearing. In checking this 

box, she affirmed that she had submitted her completed overpayment questionnaire and 

supporting financial documents. Appellant also noted that she believed the overpayment had 

occurred through no fault of her own and requested a waiver. For an explanation, she wrote: 

“See statement and supporting documentation.” Appellant explained that she was not at fault 

because she had notified the claims examiner prior to returning to work. She noted that when 

she returned to work during the government shutdown, management briefed the staff that 

government would be releasing emergency funds to government employees, so she was not 

alarmed when she received the funds. 

By decision dated March 13, 2015, OWCP finalized the finding of overpayment in the 

amount of $1,286.70. The claims examiner noted that she had obtained a Form CA-7a, day-byday leave analysis for the period October 2 through November 16, 2013 and she had recalculated 

the overpayment and found it accurate. She determined that appellant was at fault in the creation 

of the overpayment and therefore not entitled to waiver. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

disability of any employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the performance of 

duty.3

 

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

benefits. The section of FECA provides that, while an employee is receiving compensation, she 

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

limited circumstances.4

 Compensation for wage loss due to disability is available only for any 

periods during which an employee’s work-related conditions prevents him or her from earning 

the wages earned before the work-related injury.5

In determining whether a claimant has discharged her burden of proof and is entitled to 

compensation benefits, OWCP is required by statute and regulations to make findings of fact.6

 

OWCP’s procedure further specifies that a final decision of OWCP must include findings of fact 

and provide clear reasoning which allows the claimant to understand the precise defect of the 

claim and the kind of evidence which would tend to overcome it.7

 These requirements are 

supported by Board precedent.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim and paid wage-loss compensation benefits until she 

was placed on the periodic rolls. Appellant returned to part-time duty on October 2, 2013. 

However, OWCP continued to pay compensation at a full-time rate through November 16, 2013. 

This resulted in an overpayment of compensation. 

The Board is unable to determine how OWCP calculated the amount of the overpayment. 

OWCP determined that appellant claimed 133 hours for the period October 2 to 

November 16, 2013. The Board is unable to determine how OWCP arrived at this figure. 

Although there is some conflicting evidence with regard to appellant’s work hours, the record 

contains the time and attendance forms for this period. For pay period 19 she worked 16 hours, 

for pay period 20 she worked 40 hours and received 8 hours holiday pay in addition to the 40 

hours, for pay period 21 she worked 35 hours and for pay period 22 she worked 32 hours and 

received an additional 4 hours of holiday leave. The time and attendance sheets also indicate 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

4 Id. at § 8116(a). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a). 

6 Id. at § 8124(a) provides that OWCP shall determine and make a finding of facts and make an award for or 

against payment of compensation. 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provides in pertinent part that the final decision of OWCP 

shall contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons. 

7 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.4 (July 1997). 

8 R.W., Docket No. 11-1303 (issued January 9, 2012). 
4

that she was charged LWOP for 145 hours for October 2 through November 16, 2013. The 

CA-7 forms filed by appellant, however, are inconsistent with these numbers. 

The Board finds that, while OWCP listed the period of the overpayment, it did not 

accurately determine the overpayment or provide supporting evidence to certify the calculation.9

 

The Board is unable to determine from the record whether OWCP properly determined the 

amount of the overpayment. It is necessary that OWCP provide a clear explanation as to how the 

overpayment was determined.10 On remand, it must fully explain how the amount was 

determined and provide supporting documentation, to be followed by any necessary development 

and a de novo decision. In light of the disposition of the first issue, the second issue is moot. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision as OWCP must issue a new 

decision further explaining its calculation of the amount of the overpayment. 

 9 S.M., Docket No. 12-1431 (issued December 11, 2012) 

10 See O.R., 59 ECAB 432 (2008) (with respect to overpayment decisions, OWCP must provide clear reasoning 

showing how the overpayment was calculated); Jenny M. Drost, 56 ECAB 587 (2005) (to comply with the OWCP 

procedures, an overpayment decision must contain a clearly written explanation indicating how the overpayment 

was calculated). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated March 13, 2015 is set aside and the case is remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision. 

Issued: January 13, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board