United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Reston, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1349

Issued: February 17, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 12, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 9, 2021 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP properly determined that appellant forfeited his right 

to compensation for the period March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018, pursuant 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8106(b)(2), because he knowingly failed to report his employment activities and earnings; 

(2) whether OWCP properly found that appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that OWCP received additional evidence following the July 9, 2021 decision. 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

amount of $20,248.94 from March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018 as he forfeited his entitlement 

to compensation for this period; (3) whether OWCP properly found appellant at fault in the 

creation of the $20,248.94 overpayment, thereby precluding waiver of recovery of the 

overpayment; and (4) whether OWCP properly required recovery of the $20,248.94 overpayment 

by deducting $100.00 from appellant’s continuing compensation payments every 28 days.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 28, 2016 appellant, then a 51-year-old city carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on October 23, 2016, he suffered a low back strain when 

he lost his balance ascending stairs while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on 

October 28, 2016. Appellant returned to limited-duty work on November 5, 2016 and to full-duty

work on November 24, 2016. He again stopped work on February 16, 2017 and filed a notice of 

recurrence (Form CA-2a) on February 21, 2017.

In a February 17, 2017 memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110), appellant asked 

questions regarding “all the jobs he works” including for a ride-sharing company, another 

company, and possible resumption of light-duty work. 

On March 9, 2017 OWCP accepted the traumatic injury claim for a lumbar muscle strain 

and accepted appellant’s claim for recurrence of disability.3It paid him wage-loss compensation 

on the supplemental rolls commencing October 3, 2017.

On October 24, 2017 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability

for the period October 3 through 13, 2017. He noted that on October 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13, 2017, he 

was self-employed for a ride-sharing company and earned $23.00. 

Appellant filed additional Form CA-7 claims for compensation on November 2, 16, 29,

December 12, 26, 2017, January 5, and 22, 2018 for the period October 14, 2017 through 

January 19, 2018. He did not indicate that he was employed or self-employed on any of these 

forms. 

OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the periodic rolls commencing 

January 7, 2018. 

In a June 19, 2018 Form CA-110, appellant inquired about how to list his work for the ridesharing company on a Form CA-1032. OWCP informed him that the ride-sharing company is a 

job and he must put it on the Form CA-1032. 

On June 20, 2018 OWCP received a completed Form EN-1032 signed by appellant on an 

unspecified date in June 2018. The form contained language advising him what type of 

employment activities, earnings, and volunteer activities that he was required to report for each 

15-month period prior to the time he signed each form. The EN-1032 form instructed appellant to 

report all employment for which he received a salary, wages, income, sales commissions, 

piecework, or payment of any kind. Appellant was directed to report all self-employment or 

3 On October 16, 2020 OWCP expanded its acceptance of the claim to include a sprain of the lumbar ligaments and 

lumbar spondylosis. On July 7, 2021 it expanded its acceptance of the claim to include cervical disc degeneration. 
3

involvement in business enterprises, including (but not limited to) farming, sales work, operating 

a business, and providing services in exchange for money, goods, or other services. The forms 

contained certification clauses informing him of the consequences of not accurately reporting his 

employment activities, such as being subjected to criminal penalties and losing the right to receive 

workers compensation. Appellant answered a question “Yes” indicating that he had been selfemployed during the 15-month period prior to June 30, 2018 driving for a ride-sharing company.

In an August 13, 2018 statement, appellant acknowledged that he drove “for [a ride-sharing 

company] occasionally” during the previous two-and-a-half years but had stopped as his condition 

had worsened. He contended that he had not fully reported his employment to OWCP as he 

believed he was obligated to report only net earnings and the costs of maintaining his vehicle and 

purchasing gasoline exceeded his fares. Appellant commented that driving was “different from 

working prolonged hours at [the employing establishment] or [other retail company].”

Alternatively, he argued that working for the ride-sharing company was “not a job” but a way to 

earn extra money. Appellant submitted vehicle expense receipts dated from February through 

August 2018. He also provided payment records demonstrating $814.74 in earnings from January 

through June 2018.

In a Form EN-1032 signed July 17, 2019, appellant acknowledged that from January 1 

through June 17, 2018, he worked as a driver for a ride-sharing company, with an estimated 

$350.00 in total earnings. In an accompanying July 17, 2019 statement, he acknowledged his 

employment with the ride-sharing company and that he had earned income. Appellant submitted 

a 2018 Payment Card and Third Party Network Transactions (Form 1099-K) from the ride-sharing 

company demonstrating that he earned $1,123.65 from January through June 2018.

On October 17, 2019 OWCP received an investigative report dated April 9, 2019 by K.W., 

a special agent with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the employing establishment. K.W. 

advised that an investigation revealed that appellant “knowingly and willfully provided false 

information” to OWCP regarding his earnings and employment as a rideshare driver and floor 

associate. On his initial Form CA-7, appellant reported $23.00 in income, whereas the ride-sharing 

company pay records documented $97.65 in earnings during that period. K.W. attached payroll 

records demonstrating that appellant earned an additional $866.86 through January 2018, and a 

total of $2,376.90 through March 18, 2018. However, appellant did not report this income on CA7 forms for those periods. K.W. also provided work schedules and pay records from another 

company documenting $1,325.71 in earnings during approximately 240 hours of employment from 

September 24, 2016 through May 31, 2017. Appellant worked at the retail company for 18 days 

from March 26 through May 31, 2017. He failed to report these earnings and employment to 

OWCP.

K.W. provided appellant’s August 1, 2018 sworn statement, in which he contended that he 

properly reported his earnings and employment as a rideshare driver but unintentionally omitted 

his earnings and employment with the retail company. Appellant explained that he had not realized 

that each Form EN-1032 covered a period of 15 months. Additionally, he believed he was 

obligated to report only business profits and so he did not report his rideshare earnings unless they 

were greater than his expenses.
4

In a November 7, 2019 letter, appellant acknowledged that he had worked as a cashier at 

another company for 12 to 20 hours a week ending in May or June 2017, with wages of $11.56 an 

hour. He also disclosed his self-employment as a rideshare driver from 2014 through 2018.

In a Form EN-1032 signed on June 29, 2020, appellant indicated that he had been involved 

in a business enterprise commencing June 1, 2020 utilizing a software application to trade 

cryptocurrency. He reported a business loss of $5.00.

On December 8, 2020 OWCP calculated that from October 3, 2017, the date appellant 

began receiving wage-loss compensation, through May 26, 2018, he received $18,270.41 in 

compensation. For the period May 27 through June 20, 2018, appellant received $1,978.53 in 

compensation. OWCP added the amounts to equal $20,248.94. 

By decision dated December 8, 2020, OWCP found that appellant had forfeited his 

entitlement to compensation from March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8106(b) as he knowingly failed to report earnings from employment.

On December 21, 2020 OWCP advised appellant of its preliminary overpayment 

determination that he had received a $20,248.94 overpayment of compensation for the period

March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018 as he had forfeited his entitlement to compensation. It

provided its calculations of the amount of compensation paid during the period and attached a 

payment history. OWCP further notified appellant of its preliminary finding that he was at fault 

in the creation of the overpayment. It provided him with an overpayment action request form and 

an overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20). Additionally, OWCP notified 

appellant that, within 30 days of the date of the letter, he could request a final decision based on 

the written evidence, or a prerecoupment hearing.

On December 21, 2020 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the December 8, 2020 forfeiture decision.

On January 6, 2021 appellant requested a prerecoupment hearing before a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. He contended that OWCP advised him to report 

only his net earnings from the ride-sharing company and not all wages received. Appellant 

submitted calculations regarding his earnings. 

On January 12, 2021 appellant submitted preliminary financial information. He also 

submitted his January 15, 17, and November 8, 2019 e-mails to the human resources department 

at the company where he worked as a cashier requesting that they provide information to OWCP 

about his employment. The company responded in a November 13, 2019 e-mail that appellant had 

worked as a cashier from March 7, 2014 through May 31, 2017 averaging 10.35 hours a week with 

hourly wages of $11.56. Appellant also provided documents regarding his financial activities 

using the stock-purchasing application. 

During the hearing, conducted telephonically on April 6, 2021 for both the forfeiture and 

overpayment decisions, appellant asserted that OWCP should not consider his gross income as a

rideshare driver as he made little net income due to substantial automotive and personal expenses. 

He contended that he received misleading or unclear advice from OWCP and the employing 

establishment regarding his obligation to report any income, employment, or work activities while 
5

on compensation. The hearing representative requested that appellant submit current financial 

information regarding his income, assets, and expenses. 

Following the hearing, appellant submitted several statements dated April 6, 2021 asserting 

that he had complied with the earnings reporting requirements or that he unintentionally failed to 

comply as he had misunderstood the requirements. 

Appellant also provided a completed Form OWCP-20 dated May 7, 2021, and 

documentation of his income, assets, and expenses. He listed monthly household income of 

$4,885.34. Appellant noted monthly expenses of $2,199.02 for rent or mortgage, $1,485.62 for 

food, $120.00 for clothing, $625.00 for utilities, $480.00 for credit card payments, and $2,300.00 

in miscellaneous expenses. He submitted receipts and bills documenting his itemized expenses. 

Appellant listed assets of $8,000.00 in cash on hand and $1,833.00 in a checking account. He also 

indicated that he owned stocks and bonds with an unspecified value. 

On September 21, 2021 OWCP received additional financial information from appellant, 

including documentation of the miscellaneous expenses noted on the May 7, 2021 Form 

OWCP-20. Appellant listed $2,113.63 a month in miscellaneous expenses, as follows: out-ofpocket medical, $114.29; home needs and supplies, $98.79; textbooks for his son, $470.97; 

charitable support to his family, $54.99; charitable donation, $10.20; gas and vehicle expenses,

$404.53; college supplies for son, $195.61; internet streaming services, $22.97; security camera,

$1.07; school expenses, $132.25; food club recurring payments, $8.75; transportation, $87.98; 

hotel stays for medical needs for a family member with disabilities, $74.10; vehicle and rental 

insurance, $104.41; credit card interest charges, $64.18; and miscellaneous, $268.64. He 

submitted documentation for all but the miscellaneous expenses.

By decision dated June 21, 2021 and reissued July 9, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative

finalized OWCP’s preliminary overpayment determination that appellant had received a 

$20,248.94 overpayment of compensation as he had forfeited his entitlement to compensation for 

the period March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018. He further finalized its finding that appellant

was at fault in creation of the overpayment. The hearing representative reviewed the financial 

information appellant provided and determined that recovery of the overpayment would not defeat 

the purpose of FECA as his current monthly income exceeded his documented monthly expenses 

by more than $50.00. He noted that although appellant listed monthly household income of 

$4,885.34 and monthly expenses of $7,499.02, he had not submitted evidence substantiating the 

$2,300.00 in miscellaneous expenses, and had miscalculated his credit card payments and interest. 

The hearing representative determined that it would recover the overpayment by deducting 

$100.00 every 28 days from appellant’s continuing compensation payments. 
6

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

Section 8106(b) of FECA4 provides that an employee who “fails to make an affidavit or 

report when required or knowingly omits or understates any part of his earnings, forfeits his right 

to compensation with respect to any period for which the affidavit or report was required.5

An employee, however, can only be subjected to the forfeiture provision of 5 U.S.C. § 8106 

if he or she knowingly failed to report employment or earnings. It is not enough to merely establish 

that there were unreported earnings. The Board has recognized that forfeiture is a penalty, and, as 

a penalty provision, it must be narrowly construed.6 The term knowingly is defined within 

OWCP’s regulations as with knowledge, consciously, willfully, or intentionally.7

OWCP regulations define earnings from employment or self-employment as: (1) gross 

earnings or wages before any deductions and includes the value of subsistence, quarters, 

reimbursed expenses and any offer goods or services received in kind as remuneration; or (2) a 

reasonable estimate of the cost to have someone else perform the duties of an individual who 

accepts no remuneration.8 Neither lack of profits nor the characterization of the duties as a hobby 

removes an unremunerated individual’s responsibility to report the estimated cost to have someone 

else perform his or her duties.9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant forfeited his right to 

compensation for the period March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018, pursuant 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8106(b)(2), because he knowingly failed to report his employment activities and earnings. 

The EN-1032 forms sent by OWCP to appellant advised him of his responsibility to 

complete the forms and provide all relevant information concerning his employment status and 

earnings during the 15-month period covered by the forms. The forms he signed noted that he 

must report all employment, self-employment, or involvement in business enterprises. This 

included such activities as overseeing a business of any kind, including involvement in any 

enterprise he owned. The forms further requested that appellant indicate whether he had performed 

volunteer work for any form of monetary or in-kind compensation.

In an EN-1032 form signed on an unspecified dated in June 2018 and received by OWCP 

on June 20, 2018, appellant responded that he had been self-employed as a rideshare driver during

4 Supra note 1.

5 5 U.S.C. § 8106(b).

6 P.H., Docket No. 17-1362 (issued March 13, 2018).

7 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(n); K.P., Docket No. 20-0127 (issued August 10, 2021); R.A., Docket No. 18-0406 (issued 

January 28, 2019).

8

Id. at § 10.5(g).

9

Id. 
7

the 15-month period covered by the form. However, he did not disclose the full extent of his 

earnings from self-employment, nor did he report his employment with another company.

In an investigative report dated April 9, 2019, the employing establishment’s OIG advised 

that appellant had earned a total of $2,376.90 from self-employment as a rideshare driver and had 

earnings at another company during the period at issue. Appellant failed to report this income to 

OWCP. 

The Board finds that appellant forfeited entitlement to wage-loss compensation from 

March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018. The evidence, consequently, establishes that appellant 

had performed work. However, he signed an EN-1032 form in June 2018, received by OWCP on 

June 20, 2018, covering the period March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018. On the form appellant 

indicated only that he worked occasionally as a rideshare driver. If a Form EN-1032 is improperly 

completed resulting in a finding of forfeiture, the period of forfeiture is the entire 15-month period 

covered by the form in question.10 Appellant, consequently, forfeited his entitlement to 

compensation from March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

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 his or her duty.11 Section 8129(a) of FECA provides, in pertinent part, “When an 

overpayment has been made to an individual under this subchapter 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 an individual is entitled.”

12

Section 10.529(b) of OWCP’s implementing regulations provides as follows:

“(b) Where the right to compensation is forfeited, OWCP shall recover any 

compensation already paid for the period of forfeiture pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8129 

and other relevant statutes.”

13

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

of $20,248.94 for the period March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018.

10 K.P., supra note 7; J.C., Docket No. 16-1058 (issued July 10, 2017); R.B., Docket No. 15-1946 (issued 

September 2, 2016); Martin James Sullivan, 50 ECAB 158 (1998).

11 5 U.S.C. § 8102(b).

12 Id. at § 8129(a).

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.529.
8

OWCP regulations provide that OWCP must declare an overpayment of compensation for 

any compensation already paid for the period of a given forfeiture of compensation.14 If a claimant 

has any employment, including self-employment or involvement in a business enterprise, during 

a period covered by a Form EN-1032 which he or she fails to report, the claimant is not entitled to 

compensation for any portion of the period covered by the report, even though he or she may not 

have had earnings during a portion of that period.15 Appellant engaged in self-employment as a

rideshare driver and was employed as a cashier at another company from March 21, 2017 through 

June 20, 2018, the period covered by the EN-1032 form received by OWCP on June, 20, 2018. 

He, thus, received an overpayment of compensation.

As discussed above, OWCP properly found that appellant forfeited entitlement to 

compensation for the period March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018 in the amount of $20,248.94. 

The Board therefore finds that the $20,248.94 amount constitutes an overpayment of 

compensation.16 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3

Section 8129 of FECA provides that an overpayment in compensation shall be recovered 

by OWCP 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.”

17

Section 10.433(a) of OWCP’s regulations provides that OWCP:

“[M]ay consider waiving an overpayment only if the individual to whom it was 

made was not at fault in accepting or creating the overpayment. Each recipient of 

compensation benefits is responsible for taking all reasonable measures to ensure 

that payments he or she receives from OWCP are proper. The recipient must show 

good faith and exercise a high degree of care in reporting events which may affect 

entitlement to or the amount of benefits. A recipient who has done any of the 

following will be found to be at fault in creating an overpayment:

(1) Made an incorrect statement as to a material fact which he or she knew 

or should have known to be incorrect; or

(2) Failed to provide information which he or she knew or should have 

known to be material; or

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 T.P., Docket No. 17-0717 (issued April 11, 2018); J.A., Docket No. 14-1863 (issued July 7, 2015).

17 5 U.S.C. § 8129; see A.S., Docket No. 17-0606 (issued December 21, 2017); Linda E. Padilla, 45 ECAB 

768 (1994).
9

(3) Accepted a payment which he or she knew or should have known to be 

incorrect. (This provision applies only to the overpaid individual).”

18

To determine if an individual was at fault with respect to the creation of an overpayment, 

OWCP examines the circumstances surrounding the overpayment. The degree of care expected 

may vary with the complexity of those circumstances and the individual’s capacity to realize that 

he or she is being overpaid.19

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant was at fault in the creation 

of the overpayment which occurred due to his forfeiture of compensation, thereby precluding 

waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

As discussed above, the record supports that appellant had employment activity for the 

period March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018. Appellant signed an EN-1032 form in June 2018, 

received by OWCP on June 20, 2018, advising that he answered a question “Yes” indicating that 

he had been self-employed as a rideshare driver during the 15-month period prior to June 30, 2018. 

The specific language of the EN-1032 forms demonstrate that appellant knew or should 

have known that the nature of his work activity at retail company and his self-employment as a 

rideshare driver would require him to report such employment activities and earnings on the 

forms.20 His failure to accurately report his earnings and employment activities on the EN-1032 

form constitutes a failure to provide information which he knew or should have known to be 

material in the creation of the overpayment.21 Consequently, appellant is not eligible for a waiver 

of recovery of the overpayment.22

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 4

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

cases where OWCP seeks recovery from continuing compensation under FECA.23 Section 10.441 

of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that if an overpayment of compensation 

has been made to one entitled to future payments, proper adjustment shall be made by decreasing 

subsequent payments of compensation, “taking into account the probable extent of future 

18 20 C.F.R. § 10.433(a); see K.F., Docket No. 19-1016 (issued February 14, 2020); Sinclair L. Taylor, 52 ECAB 

227 (2001).

19 Id. at § 10.433(b); J.C., Docket No. 19-0911 (issued March 25, 2021); Duane C. Rawlings, 55 ECAB 366 (2004).

20 M.O., Docket No. 18-0686 (issued January 25, 2019); J.A., Docket No. 14-1863 (issued July 7, 2015). 

21 B.K., Docket No. 17-0406 (issued December 12, 2017); C.W., Docket No. 18-1557 (issued June 25, 2019).

22 B.K., id.

23 R.W., Docket No. 19-0451 (issued August 7, 2019); C.A., Docket No. 18-1284 (issued April 15, 2019); Albert 

Pinero, 51 ECAB 310 (2000); Lorenzo Rodriguez, 51 ECAB 295 (2000).
10

payments, the rate of compensation, the financial circumstances of the individual, and any other 

relevant factors, so as to minimize any hardship.”

24

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 4

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

$100.00 from appellant’s continuing compensation payments every 28 days.

The record supports that, in requiring recovery of the overpayment by deducting $100.00

from appellant’s continuing compensation payments every 28 days, OWCP took into consideration 

the financial information submitted by him, as well as the factors set forth in section 10.441, and 

found that this method of recovery would minimize any resulting hardship on him. Therefore, the 

Board finds that OWCP properly required recovery of the overpayment by deducting $100.00 from 

his continuing compensation payments every 28 days.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant forfeited his right to 

compensation for the period March 21, 2017 through June 20, 2018, pursuant 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8106(b)(2), because he knowingly failed to report his employment activities and earnings. The 

Board further finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant was at fault in the creation of 

the overpayment, thereby precluding waiver of recovery of the overpayment. The Board also finds 

that OWCP properly required recovery of the overpayment by deducting $100.00 from appellant’s 

continuing compensation payments every 28 days.

24 20 C.F.R. § 10.441; see A.F., Docket No. 19-0054 (issued June 12, 2019); Donald R. Schueler, 39 ECAB 1056, 

1062 (1988).
11

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 9, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 17, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board