United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

San Antonio, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1365

Issued: December 23, 2019

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 7, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 22, 2019 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 determined that appellant received an

overpayment of compensation in the amount of $2,027.99 for the period January 4 through 

February 2, 2019; and (2) whether it properly found appellant 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 30, 2018 appellant, then a 32-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on July 26, 2018 he broke his ankle when he stepped off the edge of a 

driveway while in the performance of duty. On September 11, 2018 OWCP accepted the claim 

for sprain of the deltoid ligament of the right ankle, initial encounter, and displaced fracture of the 

lateral malleolus of the right fibula, initial encounter for a closed fracture. It paid appellant

compensation for total disability compensation on the supplemental rolls effective September10, 

2018 and on the periodic rolls effective November 11, 2018.

Appellant returned to full-time modified-duty work on January 4, 2019. 

On February 22, 2019 OWCP determined that appellant had received an overpayment of 

compensation in the amount of $1,906.50 because he received total disability compensation for 

the period February 2, 2019 after he returned to full-time modified-duty work. A worksheet 

prepared on February 22, 2019 revealed that from January 4 through 5, 2019 appellant received 

temporary total disability compensation in the net amount of $120.79 and from January 6 through 

February 2, 2019 he received temporary total disability compensation in the net amount of 

$1,785.71, when he was not entitled to receive wage-loss compensation after his return to full-time 

work on January 4, 2019. This yielded a total overpayment in the amount of $1,906.50. 

In a letter dated April 18, 2019, OWCP advised appellant of its preliminary determination 

that he had received an overpayment in the amount of $2,027.99 because he received total 

disability compensation for the period January 4 through February 2, 2019 after he returned to fulltime modified-duty work. It also made a preliminary determination that he was at fault in the 

creation of the overpayment because he had accepted a compensation payment which he knew, or 

reasonably should have known, to be incorrect. OWCP advised appellant of his appeal rights and 

requested that he complete the enclosed overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20)

and submit supporting financial documentation. 

OWCP calculated the total amount of overpayment as follows: It found that appellant 

received a net amount of $1,937.52 in temporary total disability compensation for the period 

December 9, 2018 through January 5, 2019. OWCP divided $1,937.52 by a 28-day OWCP pay 

cycle and multiplied by two days (January 4 to 5, 2019), which yielded $138.39. It also found that 

from January 6 through February 2, 2019 appellant received temporary total disability 

compensation in the net amount of $1,889.60. OWCP added $138.39 and $1,889.60, which 

yielded a total overpayment of compensation in the amount of $2,027.99 for the period January 4

through February 2, 2019.

OWCP did not receive a completed Form OWCP-20 or additional documents regarding 

appellant’s alleged overpayment. 

By decision dated May 22, 2019, OWCP finalized the preliminary determination that 

appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $2,027.99 for the period 

January 4 through February 2, 2019 because he returned to full-time modified-duty work on 

January 4, 2019, but continued to receive wage-loss compensation for total disability through 

February 2, 2019. It further found that he was at fault in the creation of the overpayment as he had 
3

accepted a compensation payment which he knew, or reasonably should have known, to be 

incorrect. OWCP required repayment of the overpayment in full.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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

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

duty.2

Section 8116(a) of FECA provides that, while an employee is receiving compensation or 

if he or she has been paid a lump sum in commutation of installment payments until the expiration 

of the period during which the installment payments would have continued, the employee may not 

receive salary, pay, or remuneration of any type from the United States, except in limited specified 

instances.3 OWCP’s procedures provide that an overpayment of compensation is created when a 

claimant returns to work, but continues to receive wage-loss compensation.

4

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

The Board finds that the evidence of record establishes that appellant returned to full-time

modified work for the employing establishment on January 4, 2019, but continued to receive full

wage-loss compensation through February 2, 2019. As noted above, a claimant is not entitled to

receive compensation for total disability during a period in which he or she had actual earnings.

Therefore, an overpayment of compensation was created in this case.5

The Board further finds, however, that this case is not in posture for decision with regard 

to the amount of overpayment. The record contains conflicting calculations on the amount of the 

overpayment. The February 22, 2019 worksheet computed the overpayment for the period in 

question as $1,906.50 while OWCP, in the April 18, 2019 preliminary notice, determined the 

overpayment to be $2,027.99.

OWCP did not adequately address the basis for the amount of the overpayment in this case 

due to the differing calculations provided by it regarding the overpayment. A claimant is entitled 

to an overpayment decision that clearly explains how the amount was calculated.

6

 As OWCP used 

 

2

Id. at § 8102.

3

Id. at § 8116(a).

4 See J.L., Docket No. 18-1266 (issued February 15, 2019); K.E., Docket No. 18-0687 (issued October 25, 2018);

B.H., Docket No. 09-0292 (issued September 1, 2009); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 6 -- Debt 

Management, Initial Overpayment Actions, Chapter 6.200.1(a) (September 2018).

5

Id.

6 See M.M., Docket No. 17-0560 (issued August 23, 2017); R.H., Docket No. 08-2025 (issued July 20, 2009); see

also O.R., 59 ECAB 432 (2008).
4

differing amounts for the overpayment without a clear explanation of the discrepancies, the Board 

finds that OWCP has not established the amount of the overpayment in question. Therefore, the 

case will be remanded to OWCP for such further development as deemed necessary to be followed 

by a de novo decision regarding the overpayment.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant received an overpayment of compensation for the period 

January 4 through February 2, 2019. The Board further finds, however, that the case is not in 

posture for decision regarding the amount of the overpayment.7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 22, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed in part and set aside in part and the case is remanded for 

further action consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: December 23, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

7

In light of the Board’s findings regarding the amount of overpayment, it is premature to address the issue of fault 

in the creation of the overpayment of compensation.