United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RIVER DISTRICT 

POST OFFICE, Portland, OR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0297

Issued: October 23, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 20, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 4, 2018 merit 

decision and an October 26, 2018 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

3

 

1 Appellant also filed a timely request for oral argument. After exercising its discretion, by order dated September 4, 

2019, the Board denied his request finding that his arguments could be adequately addressed in a decision based on a 

review of the case record. Order Denying Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 19-0297 (issued 

September 4, 2019).

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that following the October 26, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record 

that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the 

Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

ISSUES

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

amount of $771.36 for the period November 11, 2017 through April 28, 2018; (2) whether OWCP 

properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment; (3) whether OWCP properly required 

recovery of the overpayment by deducting $50.00 from appellant’s continuing compensation 

benefits, every 28 days; and (4) whether OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review properly denied 

appellant’s September 24, 2018 request for a prerecoupment hearing.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 21, 2010 appellant, then a 55-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 14, 2010 he sustained right wrist, right leg, and 

lower back injuries when he slipped and slid down steps while delivering mail. He stopped work 

on December 14, 2010. OWCP accepted the claim for a right wrist sprain, right ulnar nerve lesion, 

right pelvic region and thigh joint disorders, and closed lumbar vertebra dislocation.

By letter dated September 4, 2014, OWCP notified appellant that he was placed on the 

periodic compensation rolls effective August 11, 2014 with regular payments beginning 

August 24, 2014. The letter indicated that deductions from the regular payments were being made 

for basic life insurance in the amount of $17.10 and $126.50 for optional life insurance. OWCP 

advised appellant that, if he had optional life insurance or health insurance benefits coverage, and 

no deduction was made that he should contact OWCP as he was responsible for those premiums. 

In an April 18, 2018 letter, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) advised OWCP 

that appellant, as a compensationer, was eligible to continue coverage under the Federal 

Employees’ Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program. It further notified OWCP that he had elected 

postretirement basic life insurance (PRBLI) coverage effective November 11, 2017, with no 

reduction.

4

By notice dated June 29, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of its preliminary determination 

that he had received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $771.36 because PRBLI 

premiums had not been properly deducted from his compensation payments for the period 

November 11, 2017 through April 28, 2018. It provided a calculation of the overpayment, and 

found that he was not at fault in its creation.

5 OWCP advised appellant of his right to request a 

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

if he objected to the decision or requested waiver of the recovery of the overpayment. It requested 

that he complete an overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20) and submit supporting 

 

4 OPM attached a Standard Form 2818, signed by appellant on January 23, 2018, in which he elected continuation 

of PRBLI benefits.

5 OWCP provided a memorandum for the file explaining the overpayment calculation. It noted that, for the period 

November 11, 2017 through April28, 2018, no PRBLI premiums were deducted from appellant’s compensation 

benefits.
3

financial documentation. OWCP mailed the preliminary determination to appellant’s last known

address and afforded him 30 days to provide the requested information.

On August 9, 2018 OWCP received appellant’s overpayment action request form, dated 

July 16, 2018, in which he requested a telephone conference. Appellant also indicated that he 

disagreed with the fact and amount of the overpayment, believed the overpayment occurred 

through no fault of his own, and requested waiver of recovery of the overpayment. He submitted 

an overpayment recovery questionnaire form (Form OWCP-20), in which he noted monthly 

income of $994.00 from his spouse6 and $11,870.00 in funds. Monthly expenses were listed 

totaling $3,384.00 which included $1,847.00 for rent or mortgage, $360.00 for food, $150.00 for 

clothing, $264.00 for utilities, $663.00 for other expenses, and $100.00 monthly payment to NW 

Priority Credit Union.7

A September 4, 2018 memorandum of conference, noted an increase in certain expenses 

with current expenses listed as $1,997.00 for rent and property tax, $175.00 for food, and $364.00 

for utilities. Appellant also indicated that he had $663.00 in miscellaneous expenses which 

included home and automobile insurance.8 

By decision dated September 4, 2018, OWCP finalized its preliminary determination that 

appellant had received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $771.36 for the period 

November 11, 2017 through April 28, 2018, because OPM PRBLI premiums were not properly 

deducted from his compensation payments for that period. It found that he was not at fault in the 

creation of the overpayment, but denied waiver of recovery because the evidence did not establish 

that recovery of the overpayment would cause undue hardship or defeat the purpose of FECA. 

OWCP directed recovery of the overpayment by deducting $50.00 every 28 days from appellant’s 

continuing compensation payments.

On October 2, 2018 OWCP received an overpayment action request form, dated 

September 24, 2018, in which appellant requested a prerecoupment hearing. Appellant asserted 

that he believed that PRBLI premium payments were the responsibility of OPM. He also attached 

a competed overpayment recovery questionnaire form.

By decision dated October 26, 2018, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review denied 

appellant’s request, finding that he did not request a hearing on the preliminary overpayment 

determination, and that the final overpayment determination was not subject to a hearing pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

 

6 Appellant noted that he received OWCP compensation, but did not list the amount. The record reveals he received 

a net amount of $2,726.76 for the period April29 through May 26, 2018. 

7 Appellant listed an outstanding balance of $4,709.00

8 Appellantstated that the expenses had increased because his 31-year-old son had moved in with appellant and his 

spouse. 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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 his or her duty. 9 

When an overpayment has been made to an individual because of an error of fact or law, 

adjustment shall be made under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor by decreasing 

later payments to which the individual is entitled.10

Under FEGLI, most civilian employees of the Federal Government are eligible to 

participate in basic life insurance and one or more of the options.11 The coverage for basic life 

insurance is effective unless waived12 and the premiums for basic and optional life coverage are 

withheld from the employee’s pay.13

A 1980 amendment of 5 U.S.C. § 8706(b)(2) provided that an employee receiving 

compensation under FECA could elect continuous withholdings from his compensation, so that 

his or her life insurance coverage could be continued without reduction. Regulations at 5 C.F.R. 

§ 870.701 (December 5, 1980) provided that an eligible employee had the option of choosing no 

life insurance; Option A -- basic coverage (at no additional cost) subject to continuous 

withholdings from compensation payments that would be reduced by two percent a month after 

age 65 with a maximum reduction of 75 percent; Option B -- basic coverage (at an additional 

premium) subject to continuous withholdings from compensation payments that would be reduced 

by one percent a month after age 65 with a maximum reduction of 50 percent; or Option C -- basic 

coverage subject to continuous withholdings from compensation payments with no reductions after 

age 65 (at a greater premium).14

When an underwithholding of life insurance premiums occurs, the entire amount is deemed 

an overpayment because OWCP must pay the full premium to OPM upon discovery of the error.15

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant received an overpayment 

of compensation in the amount of $771.36 for the period November 11, 2017 through 

April 28, 2018.

 

9

5 U.S.C. § 8102(a).

10 Id. at 8129(a).

11 Id. at § 8702(a).

12 Id. at § 8702(b).

13 Id. at § 8707.

14 See D.H., Docket No. 19-0384 (issued August12, 2019): V.H., Docket No. 18-1124 (issued January 16, 2019).

15 5 U.S.C. § 8707(d). See R.W., Docket No. 19-0451 (issued August 7, 2019); D.H., id.; Keith H. Mapes, 56 ECAB 

130 (2004); James Lloyd Otte, 48 ECAB 334 (1997).
5

OPM notified OWCP on April 18, 2018 that appellant had elected PRBLI coverage with 

no reduction effective November 11, 2017. OWCP began deducting the proper amount for PRBLI 

coverage from appellant’s wage-loss compensation on April 29, 2018. It calculated the amount of 

the resulting overpayment for the period November 11, 2017 through April 28, 2018 to be $771.36. 

The record contains a memorandum for the file explaining the overpayment calculation and how 

the overpayment occurred. As noted, when an underwithholding of life insurance premiums 

occurs, the entire amount is deemed an overpayment of compensation because OWCP must pay 

the full premium to OPM upon discovery of the error.16 

The Board finds that OWCP properly calculated the amount of the overpayment and 

provided a clear and detailed explanation of the fact and amount of the overpayment. As OWCP 

failed to properly deduct PRBLI premiums from November 11, 2017 through April 28, 2018, 

appellant received an overpayment of compensation of $771.36 during this period.17

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8129 of FECA18 provides that an overpayment must be recovered unless “incorrect 

payment has been made to an individual who is without fault and when adjustment or recovery 

would defeat the purpose of FECA or would be against equity and good conscience.” Thus, a 

finding that appellant was without fault does not automatically result in waiver of recovery of the 

overpayment. OWCP must then exercise its discretion to determine whether recovery of the 

overpayment would defeat the purpose of FECA or would be against equity and good conscience. 19

According to 20 C.F.R. § 10.436, recovery of an overpayment would defeat the purpose of 

FECA if recovery would cause hardship because the beneficiary needs substantially all of his or 

her income (including compensation benefits) to meet current ordinary and necessary living 

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

OWCP from data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.20 An individual’s liquid assets 

include, but are not limited to cash, the value of stocks, bonds, savings accounts, mutual funds and 

certificates of deposits.21 Nonliquid assets include, but are not limited to, the fair market value of 

an owner’s equity in property such as a camper, boat, second home, and furnishings and supplies. 22

 

16 Id. 

17 J.C., Docket No. 17-1791 (issued February 28, 2018).

18 5 U.S.C. § 8129(1)-(b); A.C., Docket No. 18-1550 (issued February 21, 2019); see D.C., Docket No. 17-0559 

(issued June 21, 2018).

19 A.C., id.;see V.T.,Docket No. 18-0628 (issued October 25, 2018).

20 20 C.F.R. § 10.436. OWCP’s procedures provide that assets must not exceed a resource base of $6,200.00 for 

an individual or $10,300.00 for an individual with a spouse or dependent plus $1,200.00 for each additional dependent. 

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 6 -- Debt Management, Final Overpayment Determinations, Chapter 

6.400.4(a) (September 2018).

21 Id.

22 Id.
6

Section 10.437 provides that 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 attempting to repay the debt; and when an individual, in reliance on such 

payments or on notice that such payments would be made, gives up a valuable right or changes his 

or her position for the worse.23 To establish that a valuable right has been relinquished, it must be 

shown that the right was in fact valuable, that it cannot be regained and that the action was based 

chiefly or solely in reliance on the payments or on the notice of payment.24

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

OWCP found that appellant was without fault in the creation of the overpayment of 

compensation. The fact that a claimant is without fault in creating an overpayment does not 

preclude OWCP from recovering the overpayment.25 Waiver is only possible if recovery would 

defeat the purpose of FECA or would be against equity and good conscience.26 In order to establish 

that repayment of the overpayment would defeat the purpose of FECA, appellant must show that 

he requires substantially all of his income to meet current ordinary and necessary living expenses 

and that his assets do not exceed the established limit as determined by OWCP procedures.27

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant did not require 

substantially all of his income to meet ordinary living expenses. Based upon appellant’s July 16, 

2018 overpayment recovery form and the record, OWCP found that he had monthly expenses of 

$3,384.00 and monthly income of $3,720.76. While during the telephone conference appellant 

indicated that his food bill had increased to $175.00, his rent and property tax had increased to 

$1,997.00, utilities had increased to $364.00, and he had miscellaneous monthly expenses of 

$663.00 as well as a $100.00 monthly payment to NW Priority Credit union, resulting in total 

monthly expenses of $3,659.00, no corroborating financial evidence was submitted. As 

appellant’s monthly income exceeded his ordinary and necessary living expenses by more than 

$50.00, he did not need substantially all of his income for ordinary and necessary living expenses.28 

Appellant also listed net assets in the amount of $11,870.00, which exceeds his resource base. 

Additionally, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that recovery of the overpayment 

would be against equity and good conscience. Appellant did not submit any evidence that he had 

relied upon the incorrect payments to his detriment or that he would experience severe financial 

 

23 20 C.F.R. § 10.437.

24 Id. at § 10.437(b)(1).

25 D.H., supra note 14. 

26 J.C., Docket No.19-0122 (issued June11, 2019); A.C., supra note 18; see also E.K., Docket No. 18-0587 (issued 

October 1, 2018).

27 Supra note 20.

28 See J.C., supra note 26; A.C., supra note 18;see also M.P., Docket No. 18-0902 (issued October 16, 2018).
7

hardship attempting to repay the debt.29 Consequently, OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery 

of the overpayment.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3

The Board’s jurisdiction over recovery of an overpayment is limited to reviewing those 

cases where OWCP seeks recovery from continuing compensation under FECA.30 Section 

10.441(a) of the regulations31 provides:

“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 

soon as the error is discovered or his or her attention is called to 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.”

32

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3

The Board finds that OWCP properly required recovery of the overpayment by deducting 

$50.00 every 28 days from appellant’s continuing compensation payments.

The Board finds that OWCP gave due regard to the financial information appellant 

submitted as well as the factors set forth in section 10.441. As his monthly income exceeded his

ordinary and necessary expenses by more than $50.00, OWCP did not abuse its discretion in 

requiring recovery by deducting $50.00 every 28 days from each of his continuing compensation 

payments.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 4

OWCP’s regulations provide that a claimant may request a prerecoupment hearing with 

respect to an overpayment.33 Failure to request the prerecoupment hearing within 30 days shall 

constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing.34 The only right to a review of a final overpayment 

 

29 Supra note 23.

30 R.W., Docket No. 19-0451 (issued August7, 2019); C.A., Docket No. 18-1284 (issued April15, 2019); Albert 

Pinero, 51 ECAB 310 (2000) Lorenzo Rodriguez, 51 ECAB 295 (2000).

31 20 C.F.R. § 10.441(a).

32 Id.

33 20 C.F.R. § 10.432. See D.H., supra note 14; E.M.,Docket No. 17-1502 (issued February 22, 2019).

34 Id.
8

decision is with the Board.35 The hearing provisions of section 8124(b) of FECA24 do not apply

to final overpayment decisions.36

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 4

The Board finds that OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review properly denied appellant’s 

September 26, 2018 request for a prerecoupment hearing.

OWCP’s June 29, 2018 preliminary determination of overpayment provided appellant with 

a right to request a prerecoupment hearing within 30 days. The record shows that OWCP properly 

mailed its June 29, 2018 preliminary determination to appellant’s last known address. Appellant 

requested a telephone conference, which was held on September 4, 2018. By decision dated 

September 4, 2018, OWCP finalized its preliminary overpayment determination. On October 2, 

2018 OWCP received an overpayment action request form dated September 24, 2018 from 

appellant contesting the overpayment and addressed to OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

The Board finds that as appellant’s request form was mailed to the Branch of Hearings and 

Review, it was properly treated as a request for a hearing. OWCP’s regulations, however, provide 

that when a final overpayment decision is issued, there is no right to a hearing or a review of the 

written record, and OWCP does not have discretion to grant such a request. The only right to 

appeal is with the Board.37 Appellant’s September 24, 2018 request for a prerecoupment hearing 

was made after the final overpayment determination. Therefore, the Board finds that OWCP 

properly denied appellant’s request for a prerecoupment hearing. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that an overpayment of compensation was created in the amount of 

$771.36 for the period November 11, 2017 through April 28, 2018. The Board further finds that 

OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment, and properly required recovery by 

deducting $50.00 every 28 days from appellant’s continuing compensation payments. 

Additionally, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review properly denied appellant’s September 24, 

2018 request for a prerecoupment hearing.

 

35 20 C.F.R. § 10.440(b).

36 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

37 Supra note 35.
9

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 26 and September 4, 2018 decisions of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: October 23, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board