United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.D., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Coppell, TX, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1161 

Issued: January 12, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Tim Egbuchunam, for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 27, 2015 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal of a 

March 11, 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. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP properly found that an overpayment in compensation 

in the amount of $9,520.58 had been created because appellant received compensation for the 

period August 19 to December 13, 2014 after she returned to part-time work for four hours per 

day; and (2) whether OWCP properly found that appellant was at fault in the creation of the 

overpayment and, therefore, was ineligible for waiver of the recovery. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 19, 1995 appellant, then a 40-year-old flat sorter machine (FSM) operator, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 18, 1995 she strained her right arm 

joint muscle while placing buckets of mail in the all-purpose container (APC). OWCP accepted 

a right shoulder strain and authorized right shoulder arthroscopy, which occurred on 

July 8, 1998. OWCP paid appellant compensation. The record shows that appellant accepted 

several modified job offers for both partial and full-time work. 

By letter dated September 19, 2013, OWCP placed appellant on the periodic rolls for 

temporary total disability with the first payment for the period August 20 to 24, 2013. 

In a December 8, 2014 memorandum to file, OWCP noted that appellant called to inform 

it that she had returned to work on September 8, 2014, but was still receiving wage-loss 

compensation. 

The record contains a January 5, 2015 worksheet computing an overpayment of 

compensation for the period August 19 to December 13, 2014 based on appellant’s return to parttime work on August 19, 2014 and noting that she continued to receive compensation on the 

periodic rolls through October 18, 2014. It noted that appellant had been paid a net of 

$10,445.39 for the period August 24 to December 13, 2014 when she should have been paid 

$1,398.94 for this period resulting in a net difference of $9,046.45. In attached computer 

printouts appellant’s weekly pay rate was noted as $1,083.79. Under the comments section on 

one computer printout and compensation termination form, OWCP noted that appellant had 

called and provided notice that she had returned to work on September 8, 2014. 

On February 2, 2015 OWCP informed appellant of its preliminary determination that she 

received an overpayment in the amount of $9,520.58 because she received compensation for the 

period August 19 to December 13, 2014 while receiving pay for working four hours per day. 

OWCP found an overpayment in the amount of $9,520.58 for the period August 19 to 

December 13, 2014. It calculated the overpayment by noting what appellant was paid for one 

pay period and then multiplying that amount by the four pay periods covering August 24 to 

December 13, 2014 ($2,611.35 x 4 = $10,445.40) and that appellant was paid $2,655.07 for the 

period July 27 to August 23, 2014 which when divided by 28 days equalied $94.82392. OWCP 

then multiped the $94.82392 by five days to find an overpayment of $474.12 for the period 

August 19 to 23, 2014. Next it combined the $472.12 with the $10,445.40 to arrive at an 

overpayment of $10,919.52 for the period August 19 to December 13, 2014. OWCP then 

subtracted $1,398.94 (hours it noted were owed to appellant) from the $10,919.52 overpayment 

resulting in a final overpayment of $9,520.58. OWCP found that appellant was at fault in the 

creation of the overpayment because she should have been aware that she was not entitled to 

receive compensation for total disability after returning to work part time. OWCP requested that 

appellant complete the enclosed overpayment recovery questionnaire and submit supporting 

financial documents. Additionally, it notified her that, within 30 days of the date of the letter, 

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

prerecoupment hearing. Appellant did not respond, nor did she submit a completed overpayment 

recovery questionnaire. 
3

By decision dated March 11, 2015, OWCP finalized the preliminary determination that 

an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $9,520.582 had been created during the period 

August 19 to December 13, 2014. It finalized its finding of fault; thus precluding waiver of 

recovery of the overpayment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

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, she 

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

limited circumstances.3 20 C.F.R. § 10.500 provides that compensation for wage loss due to 

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

condition prevents her from earning the wages earned before the work-related injury. 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for a decision. The record is unclear as to 

the exact date appellant returned to work, the hours worked, and the amount of the overpayment. 

The record before the Board is devoid of any evidence regarding the number of hours that 

appellant was working after her return to work. The only evidence of record pertaining to 

appellant’s return to work are a December 8, 2014 memorandum, a January 5, 2015 manual 

adjustment form computing the overpayment, computer printouts, and a compensation 

termination form noting that appellant had called OWCP to say she had returned to work on 

September 8, 2014. It is unclear from the record how OWCP determined that appellant returned 

to work part-time on August 19, 2014. The record contains no evidence showing that appellant 

actually returned to work on August 19, 2014, what her job was, or the number of work hours. 

In addition, while the January 5, 2015 overpayment calculation and computer printouts note that 

appellant returned to work four hours on September 8, 2014, the December 8, 2014 

memorandum to file merely noted a return to work on September 8, 2014 without indicating the 

number of hours she was working per day or pay period. As the evidence in the record appears 

to indicate that appellant returned to work on September 8, 2014, it is unclear how OWCP 

determined that appellant returned to work on August 19, 2014. In addition the record contains 

conflicting calculations on the amount of the overpayment. The January 5, 2015 worksheet 

computed the overpayment for the period in question as $9,046.94 while on February 2, 2015 

OWCP calculated the overpayment to be $9,520.58. 

OWCP did not adequately address the basis for the fact or amount of the overpayment in 

this case due to the lack of evidence supporting its finding of a return to work on 

August 19, 2014 and the differing calculations provided by OWCP regarding the overpayment. 

Moreover, the record does not contain any evidence on the number of hours appellant was 

working when she returned to work other than OWCP’s finding that she had returned to four 

hours per day. Furthermore, OWCP calculated two different amounts of overpayment. The 

 2

 OWCP noted overpayment amounts of $9,520.58 and $9,250.58 in its decision. The $9,250.58 amount appears 

to be a typographical error as OWCP in its preliminary determination calculated the overpayment to be $2,950.58. 

3

 5 U.S.C. § 8116(a). 
4

January 5, 2015 worksheet computed an overpayment of $9,046.45 while the February 2, 2014 

preliminary notice determined the overpayment to be $9,520.58. Finally, OWCP does not 

explain the basis for its finding that appellant was owed $1,398.94 which it deducted from the 

overpayment. As the record is incomplete and unclear as to the number of hours that appellant 

actually worked or the actual date she returned to work, the Board is unable to make an informed 

decision regarding the amount of the overpayment. 

The case will therefore be remanded to OWCP to provide documentation of appellant’s 

exact date she returned work, the number of hours worked, and then issue an appropriate final 

decision regarding any overpayment of compensation. After this and such further development 

deemed necessary, OWCP should render a de novo decision. 

As the amount of the overpayment is not yet established, it is premature to address the 

issue of fault. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture regarding the period and the amount of the 

alleged overpayment, fault, and waiver.

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated March 11, 2015 is set aside and the case remanded for further 

action consistent with this decision. 

Issued: January 12, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board