United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

E.J., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

PACIFIC RIM REGION, Beltsville, MD, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1734 

Issued: April 12, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 14, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 26, 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

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the June 26, 2015 decision. Since the 

Board’s jurisdiction is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision, the Board 

may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 

126 (2005). Appellant may submit that evidence to OWCP along with a request for reconsideration, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 
2

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant received an overpayment in the amount of $611.00 

for the period February 20, 2005 to December 20, 2008, for which he was not at fault; 

(2) whether OWCP abused its discretion by refusing to waive recovery of the overpayment; and 

(3) whether OWCP properly required repayment of the overpayment by deducting $50.00 every 

28 days from appellant’s continuing compensation payments. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that on August 6, 1976 appellant, then a 46-year-old biological 

technician, sustained a left knee injury when his knee gave way while he was moving bee hives 

at work. He stopped work on August 9, 1976 and returned to work on August 10, 1976. 

Appellant’s claim was accepted for left knee lateral meniscus tear. On November 10, 1976 he 

underwent authorized left knee surgery and stopped work. On January 10, 1977 appellant 

returned to modified duty. 

OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 17 percent permanent impairment of his 

left leg. The award ran from January 5 to December 13, 1978. Appellant received an additional 

award of 17 percent impairment, which ran from November 16, 1991 to October 23, 1992. 

OWCP also accepted that on August 6, 1982 and May 10, 1989 appellant sustained 

recurrences of disability of the August 6, 1976 injury. He underwent authorized left knee 

surgery on September 28, 1989 and stopped work. 

In a letter dated October 5, 1992, appellant requested continued disability compensation. 

On June 9, 1993 OWCP placed him on the periodic rolls. 

On July 3, 1996 OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation, effective July 21, 1996 based 

on his capacity to earn wages as a fishing lure assembler. 

The record substantiates that on March 26, 2009 OWCP provided a print-out of 

appellant’s payment history for the period August 6, 1976 to March 26, 2009. The print-out 

reflected that premiums were deducted for life insurance. 

By letter dated October 29, 2009, OWCP advised appellant that his basic life insurance 

(BLI) was updated in its records. It notified him that he was due a reimbursement of $2,395.12 

for the period June 26, 1994 to December 20, 2008 because BLI was at no cost for injuries prior 

to 1990. A fiscal payment worksheet indicated that beginning June 26, 1994 BLI premiums of 

$12.22 were withheld per 28-day periodic payment cycle. OWCP calculated the refund by 

multiplying 196 (the number of 28-day periodic payment cycles from June 26, 1994 to 

December 20, 2008) by $12.22 for a total of $2,395.12. On October 30, 2009 it refunded 

appellant $2,395.12 via direct deposit for BLI premiums from June 26, 1994 to 

December 20, 2008. 

By letter dated October 9, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that BLI premiums were 

erroneously deducted from his compensation payments for the period February 20, 2005 to 

December 20, 2008. It explained that since his date of injury was prior to January 1, 1990 he 
3

should have received BLI at no cost and no premiums should have been deducted from his 

benefit payment. OWCP noted that the over deduction of premiums caused an underpayment of 

compensation benefits for the period February 20, 2005 to December 20, 2008 in the amount of 

$611.00. On November 5, 2014 it refunded appellant a lump sum of $611.00 via direct deposit. 

In a letter dated March 18, 2015, OWCP advised appellant of its preliminary finding that 

an overpayment of $611.00 of compensation was created for the period February 20, 2005 to 

December 20, 2008, for which he was not at fault. In an accompanying memorandum, it 

explained that he was reimbursed twice for BLI premiums for the period February 20, 2005 to 

December 20, 2008. OWCP noted that appellant was previously reimbursed $2,395.12 on 

October 30, 2009 for BLI premiums covering the period June 26, 1994 to December 20, 2008. It 

indicated that he was again reimbursed $611.00 on November 5, 2014 for BLI premiums 

covering the period February 20, 2005 to December 20, 2008. Because appellant was already 

reimbursed for the period February 20, 2005 to December 20, 2008, OWCP determined that an 

overpayment in the amount of $611.00 had occurred. 

In its March 18, 2015 notice, OWCP advised appellant that he could submit evidence 

challenging the fact, amount, or finding of fault and request waiver of the overpayment. It 

requested that he complete the enclosed overpayment recovery questionnaire and submit 

supporting financial documents. OWCP notified appellant that he had 30 days to request a 

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

hearing. No additional evidence from appellant was received. 

On June 26, 2015 OWCP finalized that appellant received an overpayment of 

compensation in the amount of $611.00 for the period February 20, 2005 to December 20, 2008. 

It found that he was not at fault in the creation of the overpayment, but was not eligible for 

waiver of recovery of the overpayment because he had not submitted the requested financial 

information to allow OWCP to consider waiver of recovery. OWCP determined that it would 

deduct $50.00 from appellant’s ongoing compensation payments until the overpayment was 

satisfied. 

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 duty.3

 Under Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHB) and/or Federal 

Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) plan, most civilian employees of the Federal 

Government are eligible to participate in BLI and one or more of the options.4

 If an employee 

was enrolled in a FEGLI plan at the time he became eligible to receive wage-loss compensation, 

deductions for health benefits insurance and/or life insurance premiums will be withheld from 

the employee’s compensation benefits.5

 Premiums for BLI and/or optional life insurance are 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

4 Id. at § 8702(a). 

5

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Compensation Claims, Chapter 2.901.15 (February 2013). 
4

withheld until the injured employee reaches age 65.6

 There is no charge for BLI coverage in 

cases with a date of injury prior to January 1, 1990.7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

 The record reveals that OWCP erroneously withheld BLI premiums for the period 

June 26, 1994 through December 20, 2008. On October 30, 2009 OWCP refunded $2,395.12 to 

appellant via direct deposit for the erroneous deductions. Several years later it made another BLI 

adjustment of $611.00 for the period February 20, 2005 through December 20, 2008 and 

refunded appellant a lump sum of $611.00 via direct deposit. OWCP determined that this second 

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

of $611.00 for the period February 20, 2005 through December 20, 2008. The Board finds that 

the receipt of these two reimbursements for the same time period caused an overpayment of 

compensation in the amount of $611.00.8

 The Board will affirm OWCP’s June 26, 2015 

decision on the issue of fact and amount of the overpayment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Section 8129 of FECA provides that an individual who is without fault in creating or 

accepting an overpayment is still 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 

The waiver or refusal to waive an overpayment of compensation by OWCP is a matter that rests 

within OWCP’s discretion pursuant to statutory guidelines.10 When a claimant is found to be 

without fault in the matter of the overpayment, then, in accordance with section 8129(b), OWCP 

may only recover the overpayment if it determined that recovery of the overpayment would 

neither defeat the purpose of FECA nor be against equity and good conscience. 

Section 10.438 of OWCP regulations provide: 

The individual who received the overpayment is responsible for providing 

information about income, expenses, and assets as specified by OWCP. This 

information is needed to determine whether or not recovery of an overpayment 

would defeat the purpose of FECA or be against equity and good conscience. The 

information will also be used to determine the repayment schedule, if necessary. 

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

7 Id. at Chapter 2.901.15c(1). 

8 See J.W., Docket No. 15-1282 (issued October 1, 2015). 

9

 5 U.S.C. § 8129(b). 

10 See Robert Atchison, 41 ECAB 83, 87 (1989). 
5

Failure to submit the requested information within 30 days of the request shall 

result in denial of waiver, and no further request for waiver shall be considered 

until the requested information is furnished.11

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP found that as appellant was not at fault in the creation of the overpayment, he was 

eligible for consideration of waiver. In its March 18, 2015 notice of overpayment, it requested 

that he provide financial information and submit an overpayment recovery questionnaire within 

30 days of the preliminary overpayment notification. The Board notes that the notice of 

overpayment was sent to his proper address of record. Appellant, however, did not provide the 

requested financial information nor did he complete an overpayment recovery questionnaire or 

provide supporting financial documents within the appropriate time period to allow OWCP to 

consider waiver of recovery of the overpayment. Because he did not submit the necessary 

financial information, OWCP had no basis to find that recovery of the overpayment would defeat 

the purpose of FECA or be against equity and good conscience, as required by regulation.12 

Therefore, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the $611.00 

overpayment of compensation13

On appeal, appellant asserts that the $611.00 overpayment should be waived because he 

was not at fault in the creation of the overpayment and recovery would be against equity and 

good conscience. As noted above, however, OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the 

compensation because he failed to submit the requested financial information supporting such 

waiver. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3 

Section 10.441 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides in pertinent part: 

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

payments, the individual shall refund to OWCP the amount of the overpayment as 

the error is discovered or his attention is called to the same. If no refund is made, 

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.14

 11 20 C.F.R. § 10.438. 

12 Supra note 11. 

13 See M.S., Docket No. 15-1874 (issued January 6, 2016); R.N., Docket No. 09-1882 (issued April 16, 2010). 

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.441(a); see Donald R. Schueler, 39 ECAB 1056, 1062 (1988). 
6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3 

OWCP determined that the overpayment should be recovered from appellant’s continuing 

compensation payments by deducting $50.00 every 28 days. The Board finds that OWCP did 

not abuse its discretion and took into consideration the factors set forth in section 10.441. 

OWCP followed collection guidelines by requiring installments large enough to collect the debt 

promptly and minimizing any resulting hardship on appellant.15 The Board will affirm OWCP’s 

determination regarding rate of recovery. 

CONCLUSION 

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

of $611.00 for the period February 20, 2005 through December 20, 2008. The Board further 

finds that OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment and reasonably 

withheld $50.00 from appellant’s continuing compensation. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 26, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 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 

 15 Appellant was receiving compensation payments of approximately $1,616.94 every 28 days at the time the 

June 26, 2015 decision was issued. The debt would be paid in full on June 13, 2016.