United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Deland, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0334

Issued: January 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 9, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 5, 2020 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the merits of this case.

ISSUES

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

amount of $3,854.26 for the period August 7 through October 13, 2018 because she received 

temporary total disability compensation after she returned to full-time work; and (2) whether 

OWCP properly determined that appellant was at fault in the creation of the overpayment, thereby 

precluding waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has been previously before the Board. The facts and circumstances of the case 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference.2 The relevant facts 

are as follows. 

On August 11, 2017 appellant, then a 54-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that day she tripped on an uneven sidewalk and fell injuring 

her left hand, right knee, and back while in the performance of duty. On September 19, 2017 

OWCP accepted the claim for fracture of unspecified phalanx of a finger, left thumb sprain, left 

wrist carpal bone fracture, right knee abrasion, and lower back muscle, fascia and tendon strain. 

In a work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) dated August 6, 2018, appellant’s 

attending physician, Dr. Richard Harrison, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, indicated that she 

could return to her job with restrictions. Appellant returned to full-time modified work on 

August 7, 2018. 

On August 13, 2018 appellant submitted a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for leave 

without pay (LWOP) for total disability, based on physician’s orders, for the period July 23 

through August 3, 2018. Beginning August 30, 2018, she submitted CA-7 forms for intermittent 

LWOP for the period August 4 through October 26, 2018, with supporting time analysis forms 

(Form CA-7a) listing dates and hours of work claimed for medical appointments and therapy. 

In a letter dated September 12, 2018, OWCP indicated that appellant would receive a net 

payment of $3,250.82 for the period July 24 to August 18, 2018, and $3,485.70 for the period 

August 19 to September 15, 2018. An attached EN-1049 instructed that, if appellant worked 

during any portion of the covered period, and compensation payments were received by paper 

check or electronic funds transfer (EFT), she was to return the payment to OWCP even if she had 

already advised OWCP that she was working. OWCP noted that she was expected to monitor her 

EFT deposits carefully, at least every two weeks. 

In a preliminary overpayment determination letter dated October 31, 2018, OWCP advised 

appellant of its preliminary determination that she had received an $8,471.78 overpayment of 

compensation because she received total disability compensation for the period August 7 through 

October 13, 2018 after she had returned to full-time modified work. It also made a preliminary 

finding that she was at fault in the creation of the overpayment because she had accepted payments 

that she knew, or reasonably should have known, to be incorrect. OWCP noted that, during the 

period July 24 through August 18, 2018, appellant received a net amount of $3,250.82, which 

equated to $1,500.38 for the period August 7 through 18, 2018; during the period August 19 

through September 15, 2018 appellant received a net amount of $3,485.70; and during the period 

September 16 through October 13, 2018 appellant again received a net amount of $3,485.70. 

Therefore, because she had returned to full-time modified-duty employment on August 7, 2018

she was overpaid in the amount of $8,471.78. OWCP advised appellant that she could submit 

evidence challenging the fact, amount, or finding of fault, and request waiver of recovery of the 

overpayment. Additionally, it informed her that, within 30 days, she could request a final decision 

2 Docket No. 19-0509 (issued August23, 2019). 
3

based on the written evidence, or a prerecoupment hearing. OWCP requested that appellant

complete the overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20) and submit supporting 

financial documentation. It afforded her 30 days for a response. 

On December 4, 2018 OWCP received appellant’s Form OWCP-20. Appellant indicated 

that her monthly income was $1,779.48 and listed her monthly of $3,005.00. She reported a 

checking account balance of $156.31 and a savings account balance of $252.91, for a total of 

$409.22 in assets. Appellant asserted that she submitted correct CA-7 forms for intermittent 

LWOP for the periods of overpayment, and therefore she was not at fault in the creation of the 

overpayment. She noted that she thought the excess payments were “catch-up” payments and 

requested waiver of recovery of the overpayment as repayment would result in great financial 

hardship. 

By decision dated December 4, 2018, OWCP finalized the preliminary overpayment 

determination, finding that an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $8,471.78 occurred 

for the period August 7 through October 13, 2018. It found that appellant was at fault in the 

creation of the overpayment as she had accepted compensation payments she knew were incorrect. 

OWCP directed her to repay the overpayment through monthly payments of $100.00. 

On January 7, 2019 appellant appealed OWCP’s December 4, 2018 decision to the Board.

By decision dated August 23, 2019,

3

the Board affirmed in part OWCP’s December 14, 

2018 decision, finding that an overpayment during the period August 7 through October 13, 2018 

was established. The Board set aside in part OWCP’s December 14, 2018 decision regarding the 

amount of the overpayment. The Board noted that appellant had filed several CA-7 forms claiming

compensation and accompanying time analyses CA-7a forms following her return to work on 

August 7, 2018; however, the record did not reflect that OWCP developed the issue of her

entitlement to intermittent wage-loss compensation regarding her time lost from work as set forth 

on her claims for compensation prior to the calculation of the overpayment. The Board therefore 

found that OWCP’s December 4, 2018 overpayment decision did not clearly explain how the 

amount of the overpayment was calculated. The Board instructed that on remand OWCP was to 

determine whether appellant was entitled to additional wage-loss compensation during the period 

August 7 to October 13, 2018. OWCPwas then to determine the exact amount of the overpayment 

of compensation which occurred during the relevant period, if any. As such, the fault finding was 

rendered moot.

In a letter dated November 20, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that her debt had been 

voided in accordance with the Board’s decision. 

In a January 16, 2020 manual adjustment form, OWCP noted that appellant had returned 

to modified part-time work on August 7, 2018. It detailed that she received a gross amount of 

$9,503.34 and a net payment in the amount of $8,471.78 during the period August 7 to 

October 13, 2018. However, the correct gross entitlement was $4,617.52 for the period August 7 

through October 13, 2018. OWCP calculated the net overpayment by subtracting the difference

3

Id. 
4

from the gross, which it then noted as $4,885.82, HB credit ($677.18), BLI Credit ($51.00), and 

OLI Credit ($303.38) for a net difference of $3,854.26.4

In a preliminary overpayment determination letter dated January 24, 2020, OWCP advised 

appellant of its preliminary determination that she had received an $3,854.26 overpayment of 

compensation because she received total disability compensation for the period August 7 through 

October 13, 2018. It also made a preliminary finding that she was at fault in the creation of the 

overpayment because she had accepted payments that she knew, or reasonably should have known, 

to be incorrect. OWCP noted that, during the period August 7 through October 13, 2018, appellant 

received compensation improperly paid in the net payment amount of $8,471.7 8. Appellant’s 

compensation due based on intermittent wage loss for medical appointments during the period 

August 7 through October 13, 2018 was a payment amount of $4,617.52. This resulted in an 

overpayment in the net amount of $3,854.26. OWCP advised appellant that she could submit 

evidence challenging the fact, amount, or finding of fault, and request waiver of recovery of the 

overpayment. Additionally, it informed her that, within 30 days, she could request a telephonic 

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

requested that appellant complete the overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20) and 

submit supporting financial documentation. It afforded her 30 days for a response. 

Appellant requested a prerecoupment hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch 

of Hearings and Review on February 18, 2020. The hearing was held on June 11, 2020 

By decision August 11, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative found that the decision 

should be vacated and the case remanded. She noted that appellant maintained that her full work 

shift was 9.2 hours for the dates of September 5, 7, 10, 13, and 14, 2018. The hearing 

representative determined that OWCP must request that the claimant clarify the number of hours

worked and leave work status. She also related OWCP should calculate appellant’s correct 

entitlement to compensation during all claimed periods using the recurrence pay rate and the 

correct number of hours to be paid. 

In a letter dated August 28, 2020, the employing establishmentstated that appellant worked 

24 hours during the period September 5 through 14, 2018. It also stated that for the period of 

August 7, 2018 through January 9, 2019 her LWOP was 8 hours per day. 

In a memorandum dated September 15, 2020, OWCP stated that it would utilize the 

Shadrick formula to calculate the claimant’s partial wage loss during the overpayment period. 

In a preliminary overpayment determination letter dated September 17, 2020, OWCP 

advised appellant of its preliminary determination that she had received an $3,854.26 overpayment 

of compensation because she received total disability compensation for the period August 7 

through October 13, 2018 after she had returned to full-time modified work. It also made a 

preliminary finding that she was at fault in the creation of the overpayment because she had 

accepted payments that she knew, or reasonably should have known, to be incorrect. OWCP noted 

that during the period August 7 through October 13, 2018 appellant received compensation 

improperly paid in the net payment amount of $8,471.76. Appellant’s compensation due based on 

4 OWCP did not explain the discrepancy between the gross amounts listed as appellant’s “correct”entitlement. 
5

intermittent wage loss during the period August 7 through October 13, 2018 was a payment 

amount of $4,617.52. This resulted in an overpayment in the net amount of $3,854.26. OWCP 

advised appellant that she could submit evidence challenging the fact, amount, or finding of fault, 

and request waiver of recovery of the overpayment. Additionally, it informed her that, within 30 

days, she could request a final decision based on the written evidence, or a prerecoupment hearing. 

OWCP requested that appellant complete the overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form 

OWCP-20) and submit supporting financial documentation. It afforded her 30 days for a response. 

On October 14, 2020 OWCP received appellant’s Form OWCP-20. Appellant indicated 

that her monthly income was $3,116.34, and listed total monthly expenses of $2,992.00 . She

asserted that she reported every claim correctly therefore she was not at fault in the creation of the 

overpayment. 

By decision dated November 5, 2020, OWCP finalized the preliminary overpayment 

determination, finding that an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $3,854.26 occurred 

for the period August 7 through October 31, 2018.5It found that appellant was at fault in the 

creation of the overpayment as she had accepted compensation payments she knew were incorrect. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

Section 8102 of FECA6 provides that the United States shall pay compensation for the 

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

duty.7

Section 8116(a) of FECA defines the limitations on the right to receive compensation 

benefits. This section of FECA provides that, while an employee is receiving compensation, he 

or she may not receive salary, pay, or remuneration of any type from the United States, except in 

limited circumstances.8 OWCP’s regulations provide that compensation for wage loss due to 

disability is available only for periods during which an employee’s work-related medical condition 

prevents him or her from earning the wages earned before the work-related injury.9 An 

overpayment is created when a claimant returns to work, but continues to receive wage-loss 

compensation.10

5 The decision alternated between finding that the overpayment ended on October 13 or 31, 2018. 

6

Supra note 1.

7

Id. at § 8102.

8

Id. at § 8116(a).

9

20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a).

10 Danny E. Haley, 56 ECAB 393 (2005); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 6 --Debt Management, Initial 

Overpayment Actions, Chapter 6.200.1a (September 2020).
6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to establish amount of 

overpayment.

The Board, in its August 23, 2019 decision found that fact of overpayment had been 

established for the period August 7 through October 13, 2018. However, the Board remanded the 

case for OWCP to determine the amount of the overpayment. 11 Findings made in prior Board 

decisions are res judicata absent further merit review by OWCP under section 8128 of FECA.12

The Board notes with regard to the amount of the overpayment, that the record reflects that 

appellant had filed several claims for compensation (Form CA-7) and accompanying time analysis 

forms (Form CA-7a) following her return to work on August 7, 2018. OWCP’s September 17, 

2020 preliminary notice and November 5, 2020 final overpayment stated that it calculated her

entitlement to wage-loss compensation following August 7, 2018 using the Shadrick formula. 

However, the Board had instructed OWCP in its August 23, 2019 decision to determine appellant’s 

entitlement to compensation for the specific hours claimed on her outstanding Form CA-7 claims, 

and to then explain how it calculated the overpayment of compensation, if any. In the August 11, 

2020 decision, the hearing representative again instructed OWCP to determine the actual hours of 

lost time on the dates claimed, and then determine her entitlement to compensation for the hours 

claimed based on the recurrent pay rate of $1,304.38. However, the evidence of record does not 

substantiate that OWCP determined appellant’s entitlement to specific hours of wage-loss claimed 

on her CA-7 claim forms. OWCP did not address her claimed or actual wage-loss compensation 

during the period in question. Instead, it noted that appellant worked more than a 40-hour 

workweek, and that it had therefore used the Shadrick formula to calculate the overpayment for 

the period August 7 to October 13, 2018. OWCP however did not identify the number of hours of 

compensation she was entitled to for the specific dates and hours she claimed on her CA-7 forms. 

Due to these omissions, the Board is unable to adequately review this aspect of the case to 

determine the amount of overpayment of compensation, if any. A claimant is entitled to an 

overpayment decision that clearly explains how the amount was calculated.13 The Board finds that 

the overpayment decision in this case does not provide such an explanation. Therefore, the amount 

of overpayment has not been established. 

As the record does not accurately reflect the amount of overpayment, OWCP’s

November 5, 2020 decision must be reversed. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to establish amount of 

overpayment. 

11 Docket No. 19-0509 (issued August23, 2019).

12 A.A., Docket No. 20-1399 (issued March 10, 2021); Clinton E.Anthony, Jr., 49 ECAB 476 (1998).

13 R.B., Docket No. 20-0022 (issued October 28, 2020); C.G., Docket No. 18-1655 (issued June 14, 2019). 
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 5, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. 

Issued: January 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board