In the Matter of the Complaint Against:

ROBERT L. BAKER,
P.O. Box 5808,
Hillside, NJ 07205-5808

P.S. Docket No. PF-7

03/29/91

Cohen, James. A., Judicial Officer

APPEARANCES FOR POSTAL SERVICE: Stephen E. Alpern, Esq.,
Howard J. Kaufman, Esq., Office of Labor Law,
United States Postal Service,
Washington, DC 20260-1130

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Robert L. Baker,
P.O. Box 5808, Hillside,
NJ 07205-5808

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

Respondent has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge in which it was concluded that Respondent is liable for an assessment and civil penalties totalling $53,410.78 under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq., because of his submission of two false claims for disability compensation arising out of his Postal Service employment. The Postal Service opposes the appeal and argues that the Initial Decision should be affirmed.

BACKGROUND

This proceeding was initiated by a Complaint issued by the United States Postal Service alleging that Respondent had failed to disclose on two Department of Labor Forms 1032 that he was employed during the time for which he claimed and received disability compensation. The Complaint sought from Respondent an assessment of $43,410.78, or twice the amount of disability compensation he received as the result of the false claims, plus civil penalties of $10,000.

The Complaint was received by Respondent on August 10, 1990. Respondent did not file a timely petition for hearing and on October 2, 1990, the Complaint was referred to an Administrative Law Judge for issuance of an Initial Decision (see 39 C.F.R. § 962.4). On October 10, 1990, Respondent filed a Petition for Hearing which the Postal Service opposed.

On January 24, 1991, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision in which he concluded that Respondent had failed to timely file his Petition for Hearing and therefore denied Respondent's request for a hearing. Based on the information contained in the Complaint and the documents referred to therein, the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent had submitted two false claims to the Department of Labor and was liable under 31 U.S.C. § 3802(a)(1) for civil penalties of $10,000, and an assessment of $43,410.78.

On February 19, 1991, Respondent filed a timely Notice of Appeal in which he admits he failed to report his employment on two Department of Labor Forms 1032, but alleges he did not believe he was required to report his earnings to the Department of Labor. Respondent also alleges that he did not understand he was required to respond to the Complaint filed by the Postal Service and that he was unable to secure legal assistance. The Postal Service filed a timely response in which it argues that Respondent has admitted he knowingly made false statements, and that his objections on appeal may not be considered except on a showing of extraordinary circumstances, which showing has not been made in this case.

DECISION

Respondent has not established that the Initial Decision is in error or that he should be permitted to present his defenses at this stage of the proceeding. The filing of a timely petition for hearing would have afforded Respondent a full opportunity to present evidence and argument in defense of the allegations of the Complaint. However, Respondent neither filed a petition nor requested an extension of time until after the Complaint was referred to the Administrative Law Judge. Respondent's alleged confusion about the proceedings against him and his inability to obtain legal assistance do not excuse his failure to file a timely petition for hearing.

Respondent has not shown that reasonable grounds or extraordinary circumstances exist for his failure to file a timely Petition for Hearing and present evidence or objections to the allegations of the Complaint (39 C.F.R. § 962.21(b)(3) & (4)). Moreover, the notice of appeal supports the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent made statements which he knew or should have known were false. Accordingly, since the Initial Decision is supported by the record and no reasonable grounds or extraordinary circumstances have been shown, the appeal is denied and the Initial Decision is affirmed.