United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Omaha, NE, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1282 

Issued: October 1, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 18, 2015 appellant timely appealed the May 8, 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 the case.2

ISSUES 

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

amount of $1,117.74 for the period June 16, 2002 through March 19, 2005; (2) whether OWCP 

properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment; and (3) whether it properly recovered 

the overpayment from appellant’s continuing compensation payments. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193 (2006). 

2

 The case record provided to the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its May 8, 2015 decision. 

The Board is precluded from considering evidence that was not in the case record at the time OWCP rendered its 

final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1) (2014). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 45-year-old former motor vehicle operator, injured his right upper extremity 

in the performance of duty on October 29, 1973. OWCP accepted his traumatic injury claim for 

strains of the right shoulder, wrist, and hand, as well as a right hand deformity. From June 16, 

2002 through December 20, 2008, it deducted basic life insurance (BLI) premiums from 

appellant’s 28-day periodic roll payments.3 

In November 2009, OWCP refunded $379.32 for BLI deductions withheld for the period 

June 16, 2002 through December 20, 2008.4

 It explained that there was no cost for BLI coverage 

because appellant’s injury occurred prior to January 1, 1990. 

Several years later, OWCP made another BLI refund in the amount of $218.74. In an 

October 9, 2014 letter, it explained that it had erroneously deducted BLI premiums for the period 

March 20, 2005 through December 20, 2008. OWCP attributed the BLI withholding to a 

computer error. Appellant received the $218.74 BLI refund via direct deposit on 

October 24, 2014. 

On February 5, 2015 OWCP issued a preliminary determination of overpayment in the 

amount of $1,117.74 for the period June 16, 2002 through March 19, 2005. It explained that 

appellant was entitled to a $379.32 refund for BLI premiums mistakenly withheld from his 

compensation during the period June 16, 2002 through December 20, 2008. However, OWCP 

claimed to have made five separate and additional BLI refunds to appellant totaling $1,497.06, 

which resulted in an overpayment of $1,117.74. It also made a preliminary finding that appellant 

was without fault in creating the overpayment. 

On February 16, 2015 appellant acknowledged having recently received a refund in the 

amount of $218.74, but claimed to have been unaware of the other reported payments. 

By decision dated May 8, 2015, OWCP finalized its preliminary overpayment 

determination and informed appellant that it could not consider a waiver of recovery because he 

had not submitted a Form OWCP-20. Also, it advised appellant that it would deduct the 

$1,117.74 overpayment from future compensation payments.5

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

If an employee was enrolled in a Federal Employees’ Health Benefit Plan and/or Federal 

Employees’ Group Life Insurance plan at the time he became eligible to receive wage-loss 

 3

 The record indicates that, beginning June 16, 2002, the BLI premiums were $4.34 per 28-day periodic payment 

cycle. Beginning January 22, 2006, the BLI premium increased to $4.50 per 28-day cycle. OWCP continued to 

deduct BLI premiums through December 20, 2008. 

4

 OWCP calculated the refund by multiplying the number of 28-day periodic payment cycles (June 16, 2002 

through December 20, 2008) by the corresponding BLI premiums. See supra note 3. 

5

 The May 8, 2015 decision did not indicate an amount to be withheld, however, beginning May 30, 2015, OWCP 

deducted $111.00 from appellant’s 28-day periodic roll payments. 
3

compensation, deductions for health benefits insurance and/or life insurance premiums will be 

withheld from the employee’s compensation benefits.6 Premiums for basic life insurance and/or 

optional life insurance are withheld until the injured employee reaches age 65.7 There is no 

charge for BLI coverage in cases with a date of injury prior to January 1, 1990.8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The record indicates that OWCP mistakenly withheld BLI premiums for the period 

June 16, 2002 through December 20, 2008. In November 2009 it refunded $379.32 to appellant 

to restore the erroneous deductions. In October 2014, OWCP made another “BLI adjustment” of 

$218.74 for the period March 20, 2005 through December 20, 2008. This second payment 

duplicated part of the November 2009 BLI refund and, therefore, created an overpayment of 

($218.74) for the period March 20, 2005 through December 20, 2008. 

Aside from the overpayment identified in the proceeding paragraphs, OWCP sought to 

recover three additional payments also made in October 2014 totaling $899.00. However, it had 

not disbursed these funds to appellant. The record indicates that the payments ($611.00, 

$169.20, and $118.80) went to other individuals unrelated to this claim. Accordingly, the Board 

finds the May 8, 2015 decision is modified to reflect only the overpayment of $218.74 for the 

period March 20, 2005 through December 20, 2008. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

An individual who is without fault in creating or accepting an overpayment is nonetheless 

subject to recovery of the overpayment unless adjustment or recovery would defeat the purpose 

of FECA or would be against equity and good conscience.9

 Recovery of an overpayment will 

defeat the purpose of FECA if such recovery would cause hardship to a current or former 

beneficiary because the beneficiary from whom OWCP seeks recovery needs substantially all of 

his current income, including compensation benefits, to meet current ordinary and necessary 

living expenses, and the beneficiary’s assets do not exceed a specified amount as determined by 

OWCP.10 Additionally, recovery of an overpayment is considered to be against equity and good 

conscience when an individual who received an overpayment would experience severe financial 

hardship in attempting to repay the debt or when an individual, in reliance on such payment or on 

 6

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Compensation Claims, Chapter 2.901.15 (February 2013). 

7 Id. at Chapter 2.901.15c(1) and (2). 

8 Id. at Chapter 2.901.15c(1). 

9

 5 U.S.C. § 8129(b); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.433, 10.434, 10.436, 10.437. 

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.436(a), (b). For an individual with no eligible dependents the asset base is $4,800.00. The base 

increases to $8,000.00 for an individual with a spouse or one dependent, plus $960.00 for each additional dependent. 

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

6.200.6a(1)(b) (June 2009). 
4

notice that such payments would be made, relinquished a valuable right or changed his position 

for the worse.11 

The individual who received the overpayment is responsible for providing information 

about income, expenses, and assets as specified by OWCP.12 This information is necessary for 

determining whether a waiver of recovery of the overpayment is warranted.13 The information is 

also used to determine an appropriate repayment schedule, if necessary.14 Failure to submit the 

requested information within 30 days of the request shall result in denial of waiver.15

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

 OWCP determined that appellant was without fault in creating the overpayment, a 

finding the Board will not disturb. Although he was without fault and requested waiver of 

recovery, appellant did not submit an overpayment recovery questionnaire as instructed. The 

requested information is necessary to determine whether waiver of recovery is appropriate. In 

the absence of such information, OWCP was not in a position to consider a waiver of recovery. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3 

When an overpayment has been made to an individual who is entitled to further 

payments, OWCP shall decrease later payments of compensation, taking into account the 

probable extent of future payments, the rate of compensation, the financial circumstances of the 

individual, and any other relevant factors, so as to minimize any hardship.16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3 

 OWCP advised appellant that it would deduct the overpayment from future compensation 

payments. Although the May 8, 2015 decision did not specify the amount to be deducted, the 

record indicates that OWCP began deducting $111.00 every 28 days. The Board finds that 

OWCP’s decision to deduct $111.00 every 28 days is appropriate and further notes that the 

$218.74 overpayment has been repaid in full.

CONCLUSION 

The Boards finds that appellant received an overpayment of $218.74 for the period 

March 20, 2005 through December 20, 2008. OWCP’s May 8, 2015 decision shall be modified 

to reflect the above-noted finding. The Board further finds that OWCP properly denied waiver 

 11 Id. at § 10.437(a), (b). 

12 Id. at § 10.438(a). 

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id. at § 10.438(b).

16 Id. at § 10.441(a). 
5

of recovery of the overpayment, and reasonably withheld $111.00 from appellant’s continuing 

compensation.17

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 8, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed as modified. 

Issued: October 1, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 17 Between May 30 and August 22, 2015, OWCP deducted a total of $444.00 from appellant’s continuing 

compensation, which exceeds the amount of the overpayment. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to a refund of all 

deductions in excess of the $218.74 overpayment.