United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE 

LOGISTICS AGENCY, SHARPE ARMY 

DEPOT, Lathrop, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0536

Issued: January 20, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James Wright, for the appellant1

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 January 10, 2020 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from two 

October 22, 2019 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.3

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the October 22, 2019 decisions, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence 

in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be 

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

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

ISSUES

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

entitlement to wage-loss compensation for the period August 7, 2004 through September 24, 2018,

as she knowingly failed to report employment activities and volunteer work pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8106(b)(2); (2) whether OWCP properly determined that appellant received an overpayment of 

compensation in the amount of $370,431.46 for the period August 7, 2004 through September 24, 

2018; and (3) whether OWCP properly found appellant at fault in the creation of the overpayment, 

thereby precluding waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 19, 1993 appellant, then a 41-year-old production controller, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she sustained a left knee injury when she slid 

out of a booth and heard a pop in her left leg while in the performance of duty. She stopped work 

on March 22, 1993.4 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left knee sprain and bilateral knee 

chondromalacia patella. Appellant had multiple surgeries on both knees and was on and off work. 

She stopped work on December 16, 1998and retired from federal service due to disability in 1999.

5

 

OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the periodic rolls, as of June 16, 2002. 

Beginning in December 2002, OWCP sent appellant letters requesting that she complete 

an enclosed financial reporting form (Form EN-1032), which solicited information about her 

employment, volunteer work, dependent(s) status, receipt of other federal benefits and/or 

payments, and third-party settlements. The EN-1032 forms in effect at that time contained 

language advising her of what type of employment activities, earnings, and volunteer activities she 

was required to report for the 15-month period prior to the time she signed each form. It instructed 

appellant to report all self-employment or 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. OWCP also advised her to report any volunteer work that she 

performed and the duration and frequency that she performed such work. The EN-1032 forms

also contained a certification clause informing appellant of the consequences of not accurately 

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

workers’ compensation benefits. 

Appellant subsequently submitted a series of EN-1023 forms, each covering the preceding 

15 months from the date of her signature. The case record contains forms signed on: November 7, 

2005, covering the period August 7, 2004 through November 7, 2005; July 5, 2007, covering the 

period April 5, 2006 through July 5, 2007; October 20, 2007, covering the period July 20, 2006

through October 20, 2007; October 26, 2008, covering the period July 26, 2007 through 

4 The present claim was assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx117. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx323, OWCP accepted 

that on April4, 1983 appellant sustained a right knee contusion and right knee chondromalacia when she slipped and 

fell while in the performance of duty. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx229, it accepted that on September 1, 1983 she

twisted her right knee and ankle when she tripped on an uneven floor while in the performance of duty. OWCP 

accepted appellant’s claim for aggravation of right knee chondromalacia. It has administratively combined OWCP 

File Nos. xxxxxx117, xxxxxx323, and xxxxxx229,with the present claim serving as the master file. 

5 The record reveals that appellant elected to receive FECA benefits in lieu of Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) retirement benefits. 
3

October 26, 2008; September 28, 2009, covering the period June 28, 2008 through September 28, 

2009; October 25, 2010, covering the period July 25, 2009 through October 25, 2010;

November 11, 2011, covering the period August 11, 2010 through November 11, 2011;

October 29, 2012, covering the period July 29, 2011 through October 29, 2012; September 21, 

2013, covering the period June 21, 2012 through September 21, 2013; September 29, 2014, 

covering the period June 29, 2013 through September 29, 2014; September 30, 2015, covering the 

period June 30, 2014 through September 30, 2015; September 25, 2016, covering the period 

June 25, 2015 through September 25, 2016; October 1, 2017, covering the period July 1, 2016

through October 1, 2017; and September 24, 2018, covering the period June 24, 2017 through 

September 24, 2018. Appellant responded “No” indicating that for the preceding 15 months

covered by each EN-1032 form she was not self-employed or involved in any business enterprise 

and did not perform any volunteer work6for which any form of monetary or in-kind compensation 

was received.

On March 15, 2019 OWCP received a January 18, 2019 investigative report from the 

Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General (OIG) advising that it had received information 

that appellant had failed to report employment or volunteer work on her EN-1032 forms. The 

investigation revealed that, from 2005 through 2010, she served as the Director of Operations for 

a nonprofit organization named Quilts of Valor. It noted that, in April 2010, appellant founded a 

nonprofit named Quilts of Honor and served as the Executive Director. According to the report, 

the investigation also revealed that she served as a quilt artist for All Together Family Quilting. It 

indicated that appellant had not reported her volunteer work or employment activities on her 

EN-1032 forms. 

The investigative report included copies of Quilts of Valor newsletters dated 

November 2008 and July 2009, which listed appellant as the Operations Officer, and a printout 

from the All Together Family Quilting website that noted her as a quilt artist. OWCP also received 

a copy of her webpage, which indicated that she had served as Executive Director/Founder of 

Quilts of Honor since March 2010. A printout of the Quilts of Honor webpage also reported that 

in April 2010 appellant founded Quilts of Honor, which was described as a nonprofit organization 

that provided handmade quilts to veterans and active military members. It also included a list of 

the organization’s board members, which included her as the Executive Director. 

OWCP also received Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Forms 990-EZ dated 2013 through

2016 for the organization Quilts of Honor. The IRS forms listed appellant as an Executive 

Director. They also indicated that she worked an average of 60 hours per week in her position and 

received no compensation. 

In a November 26, 2018 interview report, OIG agents noted interviewing appellant on 

November 16, 2018 regarding her employment activities and volunteer work. They showed her

copies of an EN-1032 form from 2013 and reviewed her response of “No” indicating that she did 

not perform any volunteer work. Appellant acknowledged that she had completed and signed the 

6 Regarding volunteer work, the EN-1032 forms that appellant signed on November 7, 2005 through October 25, 

2010 inquired about whether she performed “any volunteer work for which ANY FORM of monetary or in-kind 

compensation was received.” The question on the EN-1032 forms regarding volunteer work changed as of the form 

that appellant signed on November 11, 2011. On the EN-1032 forms signed on November 11, 2011 through

September 24, 2018, the question regarding volunteer work inquired about whether appellant performed “any 

volunteer work, including volunteer work for which ANY FORM of monetary or in-kind compensation was received.”
4

form. She explained that she believed that the question regarding volunteer work was intended to 

ask whether she received money for volunteering. After the agents explained that her response to 

that, question should have included time spent at Quilts of Honor, she acknowledged that she 

performed volunteer work. Appellant asserted, however, that Quilts of Honor was a nonprofit 

organization that made quilts for veterans and those touched by war. She noted that people who 

volunteered at Quilts of Honor were unpaid and that she did not know what the nonprofit 

organization’s annual budget was. 

By decision dated March 22, 2019, OWCP determined that appellant forfeited her 

entitlement to compensation from August 7, 2004 through September 24, 2018 because she 

knowingly failed to report her outside employment, involvement in a business enterprise, and 

volunteer work. It found that she had not reported her employment with All Together Family 

Quilting or for Quilts of Valor from 2005 through 2010 or her self-employment as Executive 

Director of Quilts of Honor commencing in 2010. OWCP referenced EN-1032 forms dated 

November 7, 2005 through September 24, 2018, in which appellant certified that she did not 

perform any employment activities or volunteer work during the 15 months preceding each 

EN-1032 form.

On March 26, 2019 OWCP issued a preliminary overpayment determination, finding that 

appellant had received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $370,431.46 because 

she forfeited her entitlement to wage-loss compensation for the period August 7, 2004 through

September 24, 2018. It further found that she was at fault in the creation of the overpayment

because she made an incorrect statement as to a material fact, which she knew or should have 

known, to be incorrect. OWCP provided appellant with an overpayment action request form and 

an overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20). Additionally, it notified her that within 

30 days of the date of the letter she could request a final decision based on the written evidence or 

a prerecoupment hearing. 

On April 10, 2019 appellant, through her representative, requested a prerecoupment

hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding OWCP’s 

March 22, 2019 forfeiture decision and the issues of fault and waiver of recovery of the proposed 

overpayment of compensation. Appellant disagreed that an overpayment occurred and that she 

was at fault in the creation of the overpayment.7 

On August 9, 2019 a telephonic hearing was held regarding OWCP’s forfeiture decision 

and preliminary overpayment determination. Appellant testified that no one advised her on how 

to complete the EN-1032 forms and that she thought that she only had to report volunteer work if 

she got paid for the work. She also clarified that she served as Director of Operations for Quilts 

of Valor from 2009 through 2010 and as the Executive Director for Quilts of Honor commencing 

in 2010. Appellant also acknowledged that she was a volunteer and made quilts for Quilts of Valor 

and her mother’s business called All Together Family Quilting. She noted that she was not 

employed, did not sell any of the quilts, and did not get paid for making quilts. Regarding the 

overpayment issue, appellant listed her monthly income and expenses. Appellant’s representative 

argued that, once all of these financial figures were added up, it would show that appellant was 

either near bankruptcy or that appellant’s expenses nearly exceeded her income. Appellant 

7 On May 19, 2019 appellant elected to receive OPM retirement benefits in lieu of FECA benefits, effective 

May 26, 2019. OWCP subsequently terminated herwage-loss compensation benefits. 
5

submitted various letters of appreciation and awards given to her from local, state, and Federal 

Government officials and organizations regarding her volunteer work and military service. She 

also provided several letters of recommendation from her family and friends they explained that 

she started Quilts of Honor in order to help fellow veterans and that she had never been paid for 

her role in the organization. 

In an August 27, 2019 letter, the employing establishment asserted that the evidence of 

record established that appellant knowingly failed to report her employment and volunteer work 

on the EN-1032 forms. It requested that the March 22, 2019 forfeiture decision and the March 26, 

2019 preliminary overpayment determination be affirmed. 

In a September 3, 2019 letter, appellant listed her monthly income and expenses. She also 

provided supporting financial documentation, including disability benefit and annuity statements, 

utility bills, health insurance bills, credit card statements, loan documents, and bank statements. 

By decision dated October 22, 2019, the hearing representative affirmed the March 22, 

2018 forfeiture decision. 

By separate decision dated October 22, 2019, OWCP finalized the March 26, 2019 

preliminary overpayment determination, finding that appellant received an overpayment of 

compensation in the amount of $370,431.46 because she knowingly failed to report employment 

activity and volunteer work for the period August 9, 2004 through September 24, 2018. It further 

found that she was at fault in the creation of the overpayment and thereby precluded from waiver 

of recovery of the overpayment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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

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

or her right to compensation with respect to any period for which the affidavit or report was 

required.8

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.9 OWCP procedures recognize that, forfeiture is a penalty,10

and, as a penalty provision, it must be narrowly construed.11 The term “knowingly” is defined 

within OWCP’s regulations as with knowledge, consciously, willfully, or intentionally. 12 OWCP 

has the burden of proof to establish that a claimant either with knowledge, consciously, willfully 

8

5 U.S.C. § 8106(b); see F.C., 59 ECAB 666 (2007).

9 T.G., Docket No. 19-0051 (issued August 20, 2019); P.H., Docket No. 17-1362 (issued March 13, 2018).

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Forfeiture, Chapter 2.1402.8 (September 2020).

11 Christine P. Burgess, 43 ECAB 449 (1992).

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(n); R.A., Docket No. 18-0406 (issued January 28, 2019); AnthonyA. Nobile, 44 ECAB 

268 (1992).
6

or intentionally, failed to report earnings or employment activities.13 To meet its burden of proof 

to establish forfeiture, it is required to examine closely the employee’s activities and statements. 

OWCP can meet this burden of proof in several ways, including by appellant’s own admission to 

OWCP that he or she failed to report employment or earnings which he or she knew to report. 14

OWCP’s 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.15 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.16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP improperly determined that appellant had forfeited her 

entitlement to compensation from August 7, 2004 through August 10, 2010 because the evidence 

of record is insufficient to establish that she knowingly failed to report her volunteer work during 

this period. 

Regarding volunteer work, the EN-1032 forms that appellant signed on November 7, 2005 

through October 25, 2010 inquired about whether she performed “any volunteer work for which 

ANY FORM of monetary or in-kind compensation was received.” The question on the EN-1032 

forms regarding volunteer work, however, changed as of the form that she signed on 

November 11, 2011. On the EN-1032 forms signed on November 11, 2011 through September 24, 

2018, the question regarding volunteer work inquired about whether appellant performed “any 

volunteer work, including volunteer work for which ANY FORM of monetary or in-kind 

compensation was received.” The Board finds that the language in the EN-1032 forms signed by 

her prior to November 11, 2011 did not clearly require her to report her volunteer work as a quilt 

artist as the evidence of record does not establish that she received any form of compensation for 

her volunteer work.

As noted above, OWCP has the burden of proof to establish that a claimant did, either with 

knowledge, consciously, willfully or intentionally, fail to report employment earnings or work 

activity.17 Its procedures recognize that, forfeiture is a penalty, and, as a penalty provision, it must 

be narrowly construed.18 The Board thus finds that appellant did not knowingly omit or understate 

any part of her earnings on the EN-1032 forms that she signed prior to November 11, 2011.19 

13 Billy J. McCamey, Docket No. 00-2725 (issued June 11, 2002).

14 B.P., Docket No. 18-1427 (issued July 29, 2019); Harold F. Franklin, 57 ECAB 387 (2006).

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(g).

16 Id. 

17 Supra note 14.

18 Supra note 12.

19 See B.P., Docket No. 18-1427 (issued July 29, 2019).
7

OWCP, therefore, improperly determined that she forfeited her entitlement to compensation from 

August 7, 2004 through August 10, 2010.

20

The Board further finds, however, that OWCP properly determined that appellant forfeited 

her entitlement to wage-loss compensation for the period August 11, 2010 through September 24, 

2018, as she knowingly failed to report employment activities and volunteer work pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8106(b)(2). 

Appellant signed EN-1032 forms on November 11, 2011 through September 24, 2018 that 

advised her to report any self-employment, involvement in any business enterprise, or volunteer 

work, including volunteer work for which she received any form monetary or in -kind 

compensation for the prior 15 months. She indicated that, during this period, she did not perform 

any employment or self-employment and did not perform volunteer work. 

The evidence of record demonstrates, however, that appellant performed work activity as 

Executive Director and Founder of a nonprofit organization called Quilts of Honor. The OIG 

investigative report indicated that she founded Quilts of Honor and has served as Executive 

Director. During the April 9, 2019 hearing, appellant acknowledged performing employment 

activities and volunteer work for Quilts of Honor.21 IRS forms dated from 2013 through 2016 for 

the organization Quilts of Honor also listed her as Executive Director and indicated that she 

worked an average of 60 hours per week in her position. Additional documentation confirming 

appellant’s role as Executive Director for the nonprofit organization includesthe Quilts of Honor 

webpage. 

Thus, the Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant forfeited her 

entitlement to wage-loss compensation for the period August 11, 2010 through September 24, 

2018, as she knowingly failed to report employment activities and volunteer work pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8106(b)(2). 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 10.529 of OWCP’s implementing regulations provide, in part, as follows: 

“(a) If an employee knowingly omits or understates any earnings or work activity 

in making a report, he or she shall forfeit the right to compensation with respect to 

any period for which the report was required.

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

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

and other relevant statutes.”

22

20 See K.P., Docket No. 20-0127 (issued August10, 2021).

21 See L.B., Docket No. 16-1385 (issued October 3, 2017); see also M.D., Docket No.11-1751 (issued 

April 20, 2012).

22 20 C.F.R. § 10.529.
8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

OWCP determined that appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the amount 

of $370,431.46 based on its finding that she forfeited her entitlement to compensation from 

August 7, 2004 through September 24, 2018. For the reasons described above, it did not meet its 

burden of proof to establish that she forfeited her entitlement to compensation for the period 

August 7, 2004 through August 10, 2010. Because OWCP had not established that appellant 

forfeited her entitlement to wage-loss compensation for the period August 7, 2004 through

August 10, 2010, the Board finds that there is no overpayment for this period. Therefore, this 

period should not have been included in the overpayment calculation. 

However, for the reasons described above, OWCP did meet its burden of proof to establish 

a finding of forfeiture of compensation for the period August 11, 2010 through 

September 24, 2018. Due to the fact that appellant is not entitled to compensation for the period 

August 11, 2010 through September 24, 2018, the amount of compensation she actually received 

during this period properly serves as the basis for an overpayment of compensation. Thus, the 

Board findsthat OWCP has established an overpayment of compensation for the period August 11, 

2010 through September 24, 2018.

The case shall, therefore, be remanded to OWCP for recalculation of the amount of the 

established overpayment. It shall then issue a de novo preliminary overpayment determination, 

with an overpayment action request form, a Form OWCP-20, and instructions for appellant to 

provide supporting financial documentation. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3

Section 8129(a) of FECA provides that where an overpayment of compensation has been 

made “because of an error of fact or law,” adjustment shall be made by decreasing later payments 

to which an individual is entitled.23 The only exception to this requirement is a situation which 

meets the tests set forth as follows in section 8129(b): “Adjustment or recovery by the United 

States may not be made when incorrect payment has been made to an individual who is without 

fault and when adjustment or recovery would defeat the purpose of this subchapter or would be 

against equity and good conscience.”

24

 No waiver of payment is possible if the claimant is not 

“without fault” in helping to create the overpayment.25

In determining whether an individual is not “without fault” or alternatively, “with fault,”

section 10.433(a) of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides in relevant part that an 

individual is with fault in the creation of an overpayment if he or she made an incorrect statement 

as to a material fact which he or she knew or should have known to be incorrect; failed to provide 

23 5 U.S.C. § 8129(a).

24 Id. at § 8129(b).

25 C.Y., Docket No. 18-0263 (issued September 14, 2018); RobertW. O’Brien, 36 ECAB 541, 547 (1985).
9

information which he or she knew or should have known to be material; or accepted a payment 

which he or she knew or should have known to be incorrect. 26

Section 10.433(c) of OWCP’s regulations provides that whether or not OWCP determines 

that an individual was at fault with respect to the creation of an overpayment depends on 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.27

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3

The Board finds that OWCP improperly found that appellant was at fault in the creation of 

the overpayment for the period August 7, 2004 through August 10, 2010.

As found above, OWCP improperly forfeited appellant’s entitlement to compensation for 

the period August 7, 2004 through August 10, 2010. Thus, as there is no forfeiture, there is no 

overpayment for which she can be deemed at fault.28

The Board further finds, however, that OWCP properly found that appellant was at fault in 

the creation of the overpayment for the period August 11, 2010 through September 24, 2018, 

thereby precluding waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

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

because she failed to provide information that she knew or should have known to be material on 

EN-1032 forms signed by her on November 11, 2011 through September 24, 2018. The language 

of these EN-1032 forms demonstrates that she knew or should have known that the nature of her

employment activities would require her to report them on the forms.29 Appellant signed a 

certification clause on the EN-1032 forms that advised her that she might be subject to penalties if 

she knowingly made a false statement or misrepresentation or concealed a fact to obtain 

compensation. By signing these forms, she is deemed to have acknowledged her duty to complete

the forms properly, including the duty to report any earnings, employment, self-employment, or 

involvement in a business enterprise. As appellant indicated that she had no employment activity 

during the covered periods, she failed to furnish information which she knew or should have known 

to be material to OWCP. Therefore, the Board finds that she is at fault in the creation of the 

overpayment for the period August 11, 2010 through September 24, 2018, she is precluded from

waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

30

26 20 C.F.R. § 10.433(a).

27 Id. at § 10.433(c).

28 Supra note 24.

29 See J.A.,Docket No. 14-1863 (issued July 7, 2015).

30 A.T., Docket No. 17-0953 (issued December 20, 2017); Harold F. Franklin, 57 ECAB 387 (2006).
10

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP improperly determined that appellantforfeited her entitlement 

to wage-loss compensation for the period August 7, 2004 through August 10, 2010, but properly 

determined that she forfeited her entitlement to wage-loss compensation for the period August 11 

through September 24, 2018. The Board further finds that OWCP improperly determined that she

received an overpayment of compensation for the period August 7, 2004 through August 10, 2010, 

but properly determined that she received an overpayment of compensation for the period

August 11, 2010 through September 24, 2018. The case is not in posture for decision, however,

with regard to the amount of the overpayment. The Board also finds that OWCP improperly 

determined that appellant was at fault in the creation of the overpayment for the period August 7, 

2004 through August 10, 2010, but properly determined that she was at fault in the creation of the 

overpayment for the period August 11, 2010 through September 24, 2018. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 22, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs regarding forfeiture is reversed in part and affirmed in part. 

The October 22, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs regarding the 

overpayment is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and set aside in part. The case is remanded for 

further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: January 20, 2023

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