United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0384

Issued: August 12, 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 December 10, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 22, 2018 merit 

decision and an October 26, 2018 nonmerit 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

ISSUES

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

amount of $1,325.75 for the period September 2, 2017 through June 23, 2018; (2) whether OWCP 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 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

properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment; and (3) whether OWCP’s Branch of 

Hearings and Review properly denied appellant’s September 19, 2018 request.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 14, 2016 appellant, a 46-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) alleging that she sustained a sprain of the left shoulder when her vehicle was struck by 

another vehicle while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for contusion of left 

shoulder, contusion of left knee, sprain of ligaments of cervical spine, and strain of muscle, fascia,

and tendon of lower back.

By letter dated March 3, 2017, OWCP notified appellant that she was placed on the 

periodic compensation rolls effective February 5, 2017. The letter indicated that deductions were 

being made for basic life insurance in the amount of $18.60. OWCP advised appellant that, if she 

had optional life insurance or health insurance benefits coverage, she should contact OWCP as she 

was responsible for those premiums.

In an April 13, 2018 letter, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) notified OWCP 

that appellant had elected postretirement basic life insurance (PRBLI) coverage -- 75 percent 

reduction, Option B 5 times salary -- full reduction, and Option C Family -- one time full reduction,

effective September 2, 2017. It noted that her adjusted annual salary on which life insurance 

deductions was based increased to $61,201.00. OPM provided a form that appellant completed on 

April 1, 2018, indicating that she wanted to continue Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance 

(FEGLI) in retirement with no reduction in basic life insurance, no reduction in Option A standard 

optional insurance, and no reduction in Option B or Option C family optional insurance.

In a July 10, 2018 correction letter, OPM notified OWCP that appellant had elected PRBLI 

coverage with no reduction, effective September 2, 2017.3 It noted that her adjusted annual salary 

on which life insurance deductions was based increased to $61,201.00.

In a letter dated July 13, 2018, OWCP noted that the changes reflected in the July 10, 2018 

letter were updated in the system.

By notice dated July 19, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of its preliminary determination 

that an overpayment of compensation occurred in the amount of $1,325.75 for the period

September 2, 2017 through June 23, 2018, because she had elected PRBLI with no reduction 

effective September 2, 2017, but OWCP did not begin deducting the elected PRBLI premiums 

from her compensation payments until June 24, 2018. Consequently, appellant was in arrears for 

the premiums from September 2, 2017 through June 23, 2018. OWCP found that she was without 

fault in the creation of the overpayment. It advised appellant of her right to request a telephone 

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

objected to the decision or requested waiver of the recovery of the overpayment. OWCP further 

advised appellant to complete an overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20) and 

submit supporting financial documentation. It mailed the preliminary determination to appellant’s 

 

3 The previous options for Option B and Option C remained the same.
3

address of record and afforded her 30 days to provide the requested information. No response was 

received.

By decision dated August 22, 2018, OWCP finalized its preliminary determination that 

appellant had received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $1,325.75 for the period 

September 2, 2017 through June 23, 2018, because PRBLI premiums were not properly deducted 

from her compensation payments for that period. It found that she was without fault in the creation 

of the overpayment, but denied waiver of recovery because she had not responded to the 

overpayment recovery questionnaire or provided supporting financial documentation. OWCP 

directed appellant to repay the $1,325.75 overpayment in full.

On September 19, 2018 appellant contested the overpayment via an overpayment action 

request form. She contended that she did not receive the July 19, 2018 preliminary overpayment 

determination until August 23, 2018. Appellant’s request form was addressed to OWCP’s Branch 

of Hearings and Review. 

By decision dated October 26, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative denied appellant’s 

request, finding that she did not request a hearing on the preliminary overpayment determination,

and that the final overpayment determination was not subject to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

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.4 

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.5

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

participate in basic life insurance and one or more of the options.6 The coverage for basic life 

insurance is effective unless waived7and the premiums for basic and optional life coverage are 

withheld from the employee’s pay.8

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 

 

4 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a).

5

Id. at § 8129(a).

6

Id. at § 8702(a).

7

Id. at § 8702(b).

8

Id. at § 8707.
4

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).9

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.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

$1,325.75 for the period September 2, 2017 through June 23, 2018. 

The record reflects that OPM notified OWCP of an underwithholding of PRBLI premiums 

for the period September 2, 2017 through June 23, 2018. By letter dated July 10, 2018, OPM 

notified OWCP that appellant had elected PRBLI coverage with no reduction, effective 

September 2, 2017. OWCP calculated the amount of the underwithholding and resulting 

overpayment to be $1,325.75 as it had not deducted PRBLI premiums from her compensation 

benefits until June 24, 2018. As OWCP failed to deduct the elected PRBLI premiums for the 

period September 2, 2017 through June 23, 2018, appellant received an overpayment of

compensation in the amount of $1,325.75 during this period.11

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8129 of FECA 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.”

12

 Section 

10.438 of OWCP regulations provides that 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. Failure to submit the requested 

information within 30 days of the request shall result in denial of waiver.13

 

9 See V.H., Docket No. 18-1124 (issued January 16, 2019).

10 5 U.S.C. § 8707(d). See Keith H. Mapes, 56 ECAB 130 (2004); James Lloyd Otte, 48 ECAB 334 (1997).

11 See E.H., Docket No. 15-0848 (issued July 6, 2016); V.B., Docket No. 15-0157 (issued March 16, 2015).

12 5 U.S.C. § 8129(a)-(b); R.C., Docket No. 19-0371 (issued June 12, 2019).

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.438.
5

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

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

OWCP from recovering the overpayment.14 As OWCP found appellant without fault in the 

creation of the overpayment, waiver must be considered, and repayment is still required unless 

adjustment or recovery of the overpayment would defeat the purpose of FECA or be against equity 

and good conscience.15 Appellant, however, has the responsibility to provide the appropriate 

financial information to OWCP.16

In its preliminary overpayment determination dated September 13, 2018, OWCP advised 

appellant of her right to request a telephone conference, a final decision based on the written 

evidence, or a prerecoupment hearing, if she objected to the decision or requested waiver of the 

recovery of the overpayment. It further advised her to complete an overpayment recovery 

questionnaire (Form OWCP-20) and submit supporting financial documentation. OWCP afforded

appellant 30 days to furnish the requested financial information. Appellant did not respond. 

As appellant failed to submit a completed overpayment recovery questionnaire and

supporting financial documentation, OWCP did not have the necessary financial information to 

determine if recovery of the overpayment would defeat the purpose of FECA or be against equity 

and good conscience.17 In requesting waiver, the overpaid individual has the responsibility for 

submitting financial information.18 Appellant failed to furnish documentation, as required by 

section 10.438 of OWCP’s implementing regulations; therefore, she was not entitled to waiver.19 

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

of compensation.20

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3

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

respect to an overpayment.21 Failure to request the prerecoupment hearing within 30 days shall 

 

14 See George A. Rodriguez, 57 ECAB 224 (2005); Joyce O. Diaz, 51 ECAB 124 (1999).

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.436.

16 Id. at § 10.438; see also S.M., Docket No. 17-1802 (issued August 20, 2018).

17 T.B., Docket No. 18-1449 (issued March 19, 2019).

18 See supra note 13; see also R.O., Docket No. 18-0076 (issued August 3, 2018).

19 Id.; see also E.K., Docket No. 18-0587 (issued October 1, 2018).

20 See E.S., Docket No. 18-1293 (issued January 28, 2019).

21 20 C.F.R. § 10.432. See E.M., Docket No. 17-1502 (issued February 22, 2019).
6

constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing.22 The only right to a review of a final overpayment 

decision is with the Board.23 The hearing provisions of section 8124(b) of FECA24 do not apply 

to final overpayment decisions.25

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3

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

September 19, 2018 request. 

OWCP’s July 19, 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 July 19, 2018 preliminary determination to appellant’s last known address.26 However 

no response was received. By decision dated August 22, 2018, OWCP finalized its preliminary 

overpayment determination. On September 19, 2018 appellant contested the overpayment via an 

overpayment action request form 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.27 Appellant’s September 19, 2018 request was made after the final 

overpayment determination. Therefore, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied it as she was 

not entitled to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

28

CONCLUSION

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

$1,325.75 for the period September 2, 2017 through June 23, 2018. The Board further finds that 

 

22 Id.

23 Id. at § 10.440(b).

24 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

25 Supra note 23. 

26 It is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a notice mailed to an individual in the ordinary 

course of business was received by the individual. This presumption known as the mailbox rule arises when it appears 

from the record that the notice was properly addressed and duly mailed. The appearance of a properly addressed copy 

in the case record, together with the mailing custom or practice of OWCP itself, will raise the presumption that the 

original was received by the addressee. See L.C., Docket No. 17-1939 (issued August 23, 2018); George F. Gidicsin, 

36 ECAB 175 (1984).

27 Supra note 24.

28 OWCP’s implementing regulations provide that the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b) (concerning hearings) and 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) (concerning reconsiderations) do not apply to final overpayment decisions. Id.
7

OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment. Additionally, OWCP’s Branch 

of Hearings and Review properly denied appellant’s September 19, 2018 request.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 26 and August 22, 2018 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: August 12, 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