United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.N., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BELLMAWR POST 

OFFICE, Bellmawr, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1364

Issued: October 18, 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, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from May 19 and June 22, 2022 

merit decisions and an August 23, 2022nonmerit 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 has met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence 

of disability commencing January 29, 2015 causally related to her accepted employment injuries; 

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the August 23, 2022 decision, appellant submitted 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

claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); (3) whether appellant received an overpayment of 

compensation in the amount of $1,260.89 for the period January 15 through April 8, 2022, for 

which she was without fault, resulting from failure to deduct appropriate health and life insurance 

premiums; and (4) whether OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decision and orders are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On April 7, 2004 appellant, then a 42-year-old mail processor, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained numbness and tingling in her hands and elbows due 

to factors of her federal employment, including bagging heavy mail. OWCP assigned the claim

OWCP File No. xxxxxx674, accepted it for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and paid appellant 

wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls, effective February 1, 2004.

4 Appellant 

underwent an OWCP-authorized right anterior subcutaneous ulnar nerve transposition on 

November 22, 2004 and began working in modified position in March 2006.

5

 She stopped work 

on October 13, 2007.

On December 13, 2012 OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include

bilateral lesions of the ulnar nerve, right shoulder sprain and right trigger finger. 

On July 31, 2014 OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include left 

trigger thumb under File No. xxxxxx674. On September 11, 2014 appellant underwent an OWCPauthorized left trigger finger release and was subsequently provided appropriate benefits. She 

returned to part-time limited-duty work on October 29, 2014. On October 29, 2014 appellant 

accepted a part-time, limited-duty assignment as an expedition clerk. The physical requirements 

involved intermittent simple grasping for two hours per day, intermittent fine manipulation for two 

hours, and standing for two hours. Appellantworked for two hours per day from October 29, 2014 

through January 28, 2015.

3 Docket No. 20-1188 (issued July 20, 2021); Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 17-0771 (issued August 9, 2018); 

Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 16-1412 (issued December 20, 2016); Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 

11-779 (issued January 12, 2011).

4 OWCP later paid wage-loss compensation on the periodic rolls for the period March 10 through 

September 21, 2013.

5 The record reveals that appellant had a prior traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) with an October 17, 2001 date 

of injury, which was accepted for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome under OWCP File No. xxxxxx739. OWCP 

authorized right carpal tunnel surgery performed on February 25, 2002, and left carpal tunnel surgery performed on 

April 22, 2002. On March 15, 2006 it combined OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx739 and xxxxxx674, designatingthe latter 

as the master file. OWCP File No. xxxxxx674 has also been combined OWCP File No. xxxxxx674 with files for a

traumatic injury, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx841 and accepted for a resolved right shoulder and upper arm 

strain/sprain sustained on August29, 2007, and anoccupationaldisease claim, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx659

and accepted for right carpal tunnel syndrome and right trigger finger. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx659, appellant 

underwent an OWCP-authorized right trigger thumb release on April5, 2013. She was released to limited-duty work 

in June 2013, and returned to limited-duty work on a part-time basis in September 2013. 
3

In a November 26, 2014 report, Dr. Leo Raisis, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

provided work restrictions pertaining to the repetitive use of appellant’s upper extremities, which 

included repetitive gripping, pushing and pulling, and use of the arms at shoulder level or above. 

He reported that she could lift 5 to 10 pounds continuously and up to 20 pounds intermittently per 

day. Appellant could also engage in one to two hours of simple grasping and fine manipulation. 

Dr. Raisis noted that appellant complained of pain when driving a car for a long time due to her 

upper extremity conditions. The record contains a January 20, 2015 note in which Dr. Raisis 

advised that appellant should not drive more than 15 miles per day “for work purposes.” Other

evidence of record indicates that appellant complained of increased pain when driving and wanted 

a job closer to home.

In a January 23, 2015 letter, an employing establishment official advised OWCP that 

appellant had provided a medical narrative informing them she could no longer drive more than 

15 miles per day for work purposes. He noted that driving was not a requirement of her job and 

further reported that she provided the documentation to the employing establishment’s reasonable 

accommodations team. 

On January 29, 2015 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) under the instant 

claim, alleging that on January 28, 2015 the employing establishment informed her that there was 

no available work within her restrictions. She indicated that the recurrence was solely due to time 

lost from work after her supervisor informed her that no work was available within her restrictions. 

On February 23, 2015 OWCP requested clarification from the employing establishment as 

to whether they could no longer accommodate appellant at working two hours per day. The 

employing establishment responded by advising that appellant provided a limitation that stated 

that she could not drive more than 15 miles per day for work, but that she lived more than 15 miles 

from her assigned-duty station. It noted that her modified-duty job was still available for two hours 

per day, which did not entail any driving, but that management would not allow her to drive to 

work “in violation of what her doctor wrote.”

On February 27, 2015 OWCP advised the employing establishment that appellant’s claim 

had been accepted for carpal tunnel syndrome and that it was reasonable to assume her workrelated injury prevented her from driving to work. It requested that the employing establishment 

consider offering the position within her work restrictions, if available. 

On March 6, 2015 OWCP referred appellant, along with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF), for a second opinion examination with Dr. Robert F. Draper, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon. In a March 23, 2015 report, Dr. Draper noted that the claim was accepted for bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome, bilateral lesion of ulnar nerve, right sprain of shoulder and upper arm, and 

bilateral trigger finger. He reported that appellant continued to suffer from residuals of her 

employment-related injuries. Dr. Draper provided work restrictions, which included lifting no 

more than 10 pounds occasionally and 5 pounds frequently per day, and to avoid excessive use of 

the upper extremities. He further reported that appellant could drive for a total of one hour each 

way, to and from work.

By decision dated March 30, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of 

disability, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a recurrence of 
4

disability commencing January 29, 2015 due to a material change/worsening of her accepted 

employment injuries. It noted that the weight of the medical evidence rested with Dr. Draper.

On April 13, 2015 appellant requested review of the written record before a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. An April 7, 2015 work capacity evaluation (Form 

OWCP-5c) was submitted from Dr. Stephen L. Hershey, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

who reported that she could drive up to 20 miles at a time, allowing for intermittent rest between 

standing and sitting.

By decision dated September 25, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

March 30, 2015 decision.

On June 27, 2016 appellant appealed to the Board.

Appellant continued to submit medical evidence after OWCP issued its September 25, 

2015 decision, from attending physicians who discussed her treatment, disability, and work 

restrictions. On August 1, 2016 OWCP referred appellant, along with a SOAF, for a second 

opinion examination with Dr. Steven J. Valentino, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. In his 

August 22, 2016 report, Dr. Valentino evaluated appellant and opined that she could perform work

on a full-time basis in a sedentary capacity.

By order dated December 20, 2016,

6

the Board set aside OWCP’s September 25, 2015 

decision finding that the decision was never received by appellant as it was returned to OWCP as 

undeliverable, and never resent or reissued in a timely manner. The Board remanded the case for 

OWCP to issue a proper de novo decision.

By decision dated February 8, 2017, an OWCP hearing representative conducted a review 

of the written record and affirmed the March 30, 2015 decision. 

On February 21, 2017 appellant appealed the February 8, 2017 decision to the Board.

During the pendency of the appeal before the Board, OWCP referred appellant, along with 

a SOAF, to Dr. Richard G. Schmidt, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial medical

examination and evaluation to resolve the conflict in medical opinion between Dr. Raisis, 

appellant’s attending physician, and Dr. Valentino, the second opinion physician, pertaining to 

appellant’s work-related restrictions and whether she could drive to and from work for more than 

15 miles per day. In a January 25, 2018 medical conflict statement, OWCP requested the impartial 

medical examiner (IME) provide clarification pertaining to whether appellant required driving 

restrictions based on the effects of the accepted work-related injuries.

In a March 23, 2018 report, Dr. Schmidt noted issues pertaining to appellant’s bilateral 

carpal tunnel, ulnar nerve dysfunction, right shoulder sprain, acromioclavicular joint (AC) arthritis, 

and multiple trigger finger problems. He opined that she was capable of working in a full-time, 

sedentary position. Dr. Schmidt concluded that he agreed with the restrictions imposed by

6 Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 16-1412 (issued December 20, 2016).
5

Dr. Valentino and would not impose any restrictions on her ability to drive during her commute to 

and from work.

By decision dated August 9, 2018,7the Board set aside the February 8, 2017 decision,

finding that OWCP failed to follow its instructions on remand as the decision issued was not a 

de novo decision. The Board remanded the case for OWCP to issue a de novo decision as 

previously ordered by the Board. 

By de novo decision issued January 8, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim,

finding that evidence of record failed to establish disability due to a material change/worsening of 

her accepted work-related conditions. 

On January 22, 2019 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. In an accompanying narrative statement, she argued 

that her claim was improperly denied. Appellant listed the submission of 30 documents in support 

of her claim and reiterated that she had filed a recurrence claim because the light-duty position 

made specifically to accommodate her was withdrawn by the employing establishment on 

January 29, 2015. She asserted that her supervisor provided no explanation as to why she was 

denied work and sent home on January 29, 2015. Appellant noted accepting an offer of modified 

assignment from the employing establishment in late 2014. Following her return to work as a 

modified clerk, she submitted additional work restrictions from her physician, which limited 

driving to and from work. Appellant noted that she was working in the modified position for 

almost two months before her supervisor instructed her that there was no work available within 

her restrictions. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted documentation from the employing 

establishment pertaining to her offer of modified assignment and request for reasonable 

accommodations, correspondence from OWCP, and prior medical reports discussing her work 

limitations. 

On June 12, 2019 an OWCP hearing representative conducted an oral hearing. By decision 

dated August 9, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the January 8, 2019 decision. 

On August 19, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of the August 9, 2019 decision.

She noted that both the second opinion physician and IME agreed with her attending physician’s 

prior work restrictions and only disagreed about her capability to drive to and from work. 

Appellant argued that Dr. Valentino and Dr. Schmidt should not have been afforded the weight of 

the medical evidence as they only evaluated her on one occasion. She asserted that her attending 

physician provided the most relevant assessment because he was well acquainted with her detailed 

medical history and conditions from treating her throughout the years. Appellant further argued 

that the physicians selected by OWCP are not impartial. She explained that she filed the Form 

CA-2a due to lost time from work after she was denied work by the employing establishment. 

Appellant argued that her recurrence claim was filed because of the withdrawal of her light-duty 

assignment made specifically to accommodate her work-related conditions. She further noted that 

her work restrictions were permanent and had been in place for over 13 years determined by 

7 Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 17-0771 (issued August 9, 2018).
6

previous functional capacity evaluations. As such, the employing establishment provided her 

modified job assignments within these restrictions. Appellant referenced Dr. Raisis’ prior medical 

reports, which found that that she had reached maximum medical improvement, that her conditions 

were permanent in nature, and that she experienced upper extremity pain when driving a car for a 

long time. She argued that Dr. Raisis never opined that her work restrictions were due to a 

change/worsening of her accepted work-related conditions. Rather, these restrictions were 

provided as a result of appellant’s initial work-related injuries. Appellant provided supporting 

documentation for her arguments including correspondence from the employing establishment, the 

January 28, 2015 Form CA-2a, prior medical reports, and two accepted offers of modified job 

assignment from the employing establishment.

By decision dated May 5, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim.

On May 15, 2020 appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated July 20, 2021,

8

the 

Board set aside OWCP’s May 5, 2020 decision, finding that OWCP improperly denied herrequest 

for reconsideration of the merits of her claim. The Board found that on reconsideration appellant 

submitted a relevant legal argument not previously considered, explaining that she was not alleging 

a material change/worsening of her work-related conditions, but was rather alleging a recurrence 

of disability due to withdrawal of her light-duty position.9 The Board found that this argument 

was relevant to the underlying issue of whether she had established a recurrence of disability due 

to withdrawal of a light-duty assignment. The Board remanded the case to OWCP for 

consideration of the merits of appellant’s claim, to be followed by an appropriate merit decision.

On remand, OWCP referred appellant, along with an updated SOAF, for a second opinion 

examination with Dr. Noubar Didizian, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. The December 20, 

2021 SOAF addendum discussed appellant’s limited-duty work since March 2006. OWCP 

reported that she stopped working because of her driving restriction on January 28, 2015. It 

explained that appellant underwent surgery for left trigger thumb release on September 11, 2014, 

and was subsequently referred to physical therapy and released to light-duty full-time work. On 

October 29, 2014 appellant accepted a light-duty job and worked two hours per day. OWCP 

reported thatshe was restricted to driving only 15 miles per day because of her accepted conditions 

and could not drive the distance between her home and job site. 

In a January 6, 2022 report, Dr. Didizian reviewed appellant’s medical history, the SOAF,

and discussed findings on examination. He noted that she had accepted a light-duty assignment 

on October 29, 2014 working two hours per day. Appellant informed him that she last worked on 

January 28, 2015, because there were no light-duty jobs available within her capacity. 

Dr. Didizian responded to OWCP’s questionnaire and opined that appellant could return to her 

previous modified-duty job. He explained that she could not return to her original employment 

8 Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 20-1188 (issued July 20, 2021).

9 On appeal, appellant asserted that she had accepted an offer of a modified-duty assignment and worked for two 

hours per day based on these restrictions prior to the withdrawal of her limited-duty position. She alleged that when 

she requested additional work restrictions pertaining to her commute, the employing establishment withdrew the 

current light-duty position she had been assigned. 
7

duties, but could return to modified-duty work, which was the work she was performing when she 

stopped working.

The record contains a manual adjustment form and a supplemental roll payment showing 

no deduction of premiums for health benefits insurance (HBI), basic life insurance (BLI), and 

postretirement basic life insurance (PRBLI) from January 15, 2022 through April 8, 2022.

In a preliminary overpayment determination dated May 16, 2022, OWCP notified 

appellant of its preliminary finding that she had received an overpayment of compensation in the 

amount of $1,260.89 for the period January 15 through April 8, 2022, because premiums for HBI, 

BLI, and PRBLI had not been properly deducted from her compensation payments. It summarized 

its calculation of the overpayment relating that HBI premiums should have been deducted in the 

amount of $768.42; BLI premiums should have been deducted in the amount of $58.56; and PRBLI 

should have been deducted in the amount of $437.51. OWCP determined that appellant was 

without fault in the creation of the overpayment. It requested that she complete an overpayment 

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

including copies of income tax returns, bank account statements, bills and cancelled checks, pay 

slips, and other records that support income and expenses. Additionally, OWCP provided an 

overpayment action request form and notified appellant that, within 30 days, she could request a 

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

By decision dated May 19, 2022, OWCP denied modification of the August 9, 2019 

decision regarding appellant’s recurrence claim. 

On May 23, 2022 OWCP received a Form OWCP-20 requesting that OWCP withdraw 

$100.00 from future compensation payments until compensation was discontinued or the amount 

of the overpayment was paid in full. The record reflects that appellant did not contest fact and 

amount of the overpayment.

On June 15, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s May 19, 2022 decision

and presented various arguments in support of her recurrence claim. She asserted that her claim 

should be accepted for a recurrence of disability because the employing establishment withdrew 

her established modified-duty assignment. 

By decision dated June 22, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative finalized the May 16, 

2022 preliminary overpayment determination, finding that appellant received an overpayment of 

compensation in the amount of $1,260.89 for the period January 15 through April 8, 2022, because 

premiums for health and life insurance were not deducted from her FECA compensation. The 

hearing representative found appellant without fault in the creation of the overpayment, but denied 

waiver of recovery of the overpayment. The hearing representative related that the overpayment 

was due and payable in full.

By decision dated August 23, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of her claim with respect to the recurrence of disability issue. 
8

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

A recurrence of disability means an inability to work after an employee has returned to 

work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical condition, which resulted from a previous 

injury of illness, without an intervening injury of new exposure to the work environment that 

caused the illness.10 Recurrence of disability also means an inability to work that takes place when 

a light-duty assignment made specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations due 

to his or her work-related injury or illness is withdrawn, or when the physical requirements of such 

an assignment are altered so that they exceed his or her established physical limitations. 11 Absent 

a change or withdrawal of a light-duty assignment, a recurrence of disability following a return to 

light duty may be established by showing a change in the nature and extent of the injury -related 

condition such that the employee could no longer perform the light-duty assignment.12 

When an employee claims a recurrence of disability due to an accepted employmentrelated injury, he or she has the burden of proof to establish that the recurrence is causally related 

to the original injury.13 This burden includes the necessity of furnishing evidence from a qualified 

physician who concludes that the recurrent disability is causally related to the employment 

injury.14 The physician’s opinion must be based on a complete and accurate factual and medical 

history and it must be supported by sound medical reasoning. 15 Where no such rationale is present, 

the medical evidence is of diminished probative value.16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has established a recurrence of disability due to the 

employing establishment’s withdrawal of her limited-duty assignment on January 29, 2015.

In its May 19, 2022 decision, OWCP acknowledged that the employing establishment 

withdrew appellant’s modified-duty assignment. However, it continued to evaluate her claim for 

a recurrence using the standard set forth for a material change/worsening of her accepted medical 

conditions. The Board notes that appellant can establish a recurrence of disability due to 

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x).

11 Id. 

12 G.L., Docket No. 16-1542 (issued August25, 2017); TheresaL. Andrews, 55 ECAB 719, 722 (2004); see also 

Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000); Mary A. Howard, 45 ECAB 646 (1994); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 

222 (1986).

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.104(b); see Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.5 

and 2.1500.6 (June 2013).

14 H.T., Docket No. 17-0209 (issued February 8, 2019); S.S., 59 ECAB 315, 318-19 (2008).

15 Id.

16 G.L., Docket No. 19-0898 (issued December 5, 2019); E.M.,Docket No. 19-0251 (issued May 16, 2019); MaryA. 

Ceglia, Docket No. 04-0113 (issued July 22, 2004).
9

withdrawal of her light-duty position or because her condition no longer allowed her to perform 

the modified-duty position.17

The record reflects that on October 29, 2014 appellant accepted a part-time limited-duty 

assignment as an expedition clerk. The physical requirements involved intermittent simple 

grasping for two hours, intermittent fine manipulation for two hours, and standing for two hours. 

While appellant’s limited-duty assignment did not entail any driving duties, her position was 

withdrawn by management following her request for accommodations related to her work 

commute. The employing establishment contended that the October 29, 2014 position remained 

available,18 but acknowledged that management would not allow appellant to work in the position, 

thereby establishing withdrawal of her light-duty assignment.19 Furthermore, the most recent 

January 6, 2022 OWCP referral examination by Dr. Didizian provides continued support for 

appellant’s limitations as the physician opined that she could not return to her original employment 

duties, but could return to her October 29, 2014 limited-duty assignment. The Board finds that 

OWCP improperly denied appellant’s recurrence claim as the evidence of record establishes that 

the light-duty assignment, which had been made specifically to accommodate her physical 

limitations due to her accepted work injury was withdrawn.20 

The Board has held that withdrawal of a light-duty job formulated to comply with an 

employee’s work-related medical limitations can constitute a recurrence of disability. 21 In the 

present case, the employing establishment acknowledged that appellant’s light-duty job was 

withdrawn by management, despite the position remaining available. The position was not 

withdrawn due to misconduct, performance, or reduction-in-force.22 The Board, therefore, finds 

that appellant sustained an employment-related recurrence of total disability when her work was 

withdrawn by the employing establishment on January 29, 2015.23

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3

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 .

24

 When 

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

17 See A.W., Docket No. 18-0589 (issued May 14, 2019).

18 F.K., Docket No. 11-0141 (issued September 7, 2011).

19 J.T., Docket No. 18-0789 (issued December 7, 2018).

20 See L.F., Docket No. 16-0872 (issued April17, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

465 (2005).

21 See J.G., Docket No. 17-0910 (issued August 28, 2017); M.A.,Docket No. 16-1602 (issued May 22, 2017); 

J.F., 58 ECAB 124 (2006).

22 M.F., Docket No. 14-1326 (issued April 26, 2017).

23 Id.;see also K.S.,Docket No. 08-2105(2009). In light of the Board’s disposition of Issue 1, Issue 2 is rendered 

moot.

24 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a).
10

be made under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor by decreasing later payments to 

which the individual is entitled.25

Under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program 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.26 An employee entitled to disability 

compensation may continue his or her health benefits under the FEHB program. If an employee 

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

compensation, deductions for HBI and/or life insurance premiums will be withheld from the 

employee’s compensation benefits.27 The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), by regulation 

provides guidelines for the registration, enrollment, and continuation of enrollment for federal 

employees. In this connection, 5 C.F.R. § 890.502(a)(1) provides that an employee or annuitant 

is responsible for payment of the employee’s share of the cost of enrollment for every pay period 

during which the enrollment continues. In each pay period for which health benefits withholdings 

or direct premium payments are not made, but during which the enrollment of an employee or 

annuitant continues, he or she incurs an indebtedness to the United States in the amount of the 

proper employee withholding required for that pay period.28 The Board has recognized that, when 

an under withholding of premiums is discovered, the entire amount is deemed an overpayment of 

compensation because OWCP must pay the full premium to OPM when the error is discovered.29

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3

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

$1,260.89 for the period January 15 through April 8, 2022, for which she was without fault, 

resulting from failure to deduct appropriate health and life insurance premiums.

In a preliminary overpayment determination dated May 16, 2022, OWCP notified 

appellant of its preliminary finding that she received an overpayment of compensation in the 

amount of $1,260.89 because HBI, BLI, and PRBLI premiums had not been properly deducted 

from her compensation payments for the period January 15 through April 8, 2022. It provided 

payment documents and worksheets explaining how it calculated the $1,260.89 overpayment.30 

OWCP summarized its calculation of the overpayment relating that HBI premiums should have 

been deducted in the amount of $768.42; BLI premiums should have been deducted in the amount 

of $58.56; and PRBLI should have been deducted in the amount of $437.51. As noted, when an 

under withholding of HBI or life insurance premiums occurs, the entire amount is deemed an 

25 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.434-10.437; J.L., Docket No. 18-0212 (issued June 8, 2018).

26 5 U.S.C. § 8702(a). See E.J., Docket No. 15-1734 (issued April 12, 2016).

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

28 5 C.F.R. § 890.502(a)(1).

29 R.M., Docket No. 19-0183 (issued November 18, 2019); James Lloyd Otte, 48 ECAB 334 (1997).

30 Id.
11

overpayment of compensation because OWCP must pay the full premium to OPM upon discovery 

of the error.

31

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 HBI, BLI, and PRBLI premiums from January 15 through April 8, 2022, 

appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $1,260.89 during this 

period.

32

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 4

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. 33 

Section 10.438 of OWCP’s 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.34

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 4

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

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. 35 Appellant, 

however, had the responsibility to provide supporting financial information and documentation to 

OWCP.36

In its preliminary overpayment determination dated May 16, 2022, OWCP explained the 

importance of providing the completed overpayment recovery questionnaire and supporting 

financial documentation, including copies of income tax returns, bank account statements, bills, 

pay slips, and any other records to support appellant’s reported income and expenses. It advised 

her that it would deny waiver of recovery if she failed to furnish the requested financial information 

31 D.B., Docket No. 19-1742 (issued March 22, 2021).

32 C.W., Docket No. 21-0943 (issued February 17, 2023).

33 5 U.S.C. § 8129; 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.433, 10.434, 10.436, and 10.437; see A.S., Docket No. 17-0606 (issued 

December 21, 2017).

34 20 C.F.R. § 10.438.

35 Id. at § 10.436.

36 Supra note 34.
12

within 30 days. Appellant, however, did not submit any financial documentation necessary for 

OWCP to determine if recovery of the overpayment would defeat the purpose of FECA or if 

recovery would be against equity and good conscience. She did not complete the Form OWCP20 outlining her income, assets, and expenses. The evidence of record is, therefore, insufficient to 

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

and good conscience.37

Consequently, as appellant did not submit the information required under 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.438 of OWCP’s regulations, OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the 

overpayment.38

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

a recurrence of disability commencing January 29, 2015 due to her accepted employment injuries. 

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

$1,260.89, for the period January 15 through April 8, 2022, for which she was without fault, 

resulting from failure to deduct appropriate health and life insurance premiums, and that OWCP 

properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

37 T.W., Docket No. 21-0130 (issued October 22, 2021).

38 See T.E., Docket No. 19-0348 (issued December 11, 2019).
13

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 19, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programsregarding the recurrence of disability claim is reversed. Accordingly, the 

August 23, 2022 denial of appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim is 

rendered moot.39 The June 22, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

is affirmed.

Issued: October 18, 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

39 See K.P., Docket No. 21-1065 (issued March 30, 2022); B.N., Docket No. 17-0787 (issued July 6, 2018).