In the Matter of the Petition by

CATHERINE M. RYGIEL
605 Calais Drive #304

          at

Pittsburgh, PA 15237-4545              P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-23

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:     Catherine M. Rygiel
                                                         605 Calais Drive, #304
                                                         Pittsburgh, PA 15237-4545

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:  Linda A. Cardella, Manager
                                                         Labor Relations, Room 2250
                                                         United States Postal Service
                                                         1001 California Avenue
                                                         Pittsburgh, PA 15290-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Catherine Rygiel, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from the Manager, Accounting Services, Pittsburgh District, dated January 6, 2000. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $359.65 from Petitioner's salary, based on Petitioner's workers' compensation claim being disallowed by the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), Department of Labor.

Action on this case was suspended for several months while Petitioner pursued various requests for reconsideration with the OWCP. The case is now ready for decision. The following findings of fact are based on all the material filed by the parties.

1. Petitioner suffered an ankle injury on April 17, 1998. She completed a Department of Labor Form CA-1 to claim compensation and elected to receive "continuation-of-pay" (COP) while she was absent from work. She acknowledged on the Form CA-1 that she could be charged leave or required to repay the COP if her claim was denied. (Answer, Ex. 1)

2. On June 11, 1998, the OWCP denied Petitioner's claim because the evidence did not establish that her condition was caused by an injury at the workplace. (Answer, Ex. 2)

3. Petitioner submitted a request for reconsideration, with some additional evidence. On October 29, 1998, after reviewing the case, the OWCP reaffirmed its denial of Petitioner's claim. (Answer, Ex. 4)

4. On December 16, 1998, Petitioner's representative submitted some additional medical evidence to the OWCP, apparently unaware that the OWCP had already denied reconsideration. (Desmond Neurohr letter, attached to Petition)

5. On September 22, 1999, the Postal Service notified Petitioner that she was required to repay 37.18 hours of COP benefits that she had been paid. (Answer, Ex. 3)

6. On December 9, 1999, Petitioner's representative wrote to the OWCP, again requesting reconsideration based on the evidence he had submitted in December 1998. (Neurohr letter, attached to Petition)

7. On December 13, 1999, Respondent issued Petitioner a letter of demand for $359.65, and on January 6, 2000, issued the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets to Petitioner. (Answer, Exs. 6 and 7)

8. On May 11, 2000, Petitioner's representative wrote to the OWCP asking again for reconsideration, this time referring to a denial by OWCP on March 3, 2000. (Neurohr letter to Robert Breeden, filed by Petitioner on May 24, 2000)¹

9. On August 29, 2000, the OWCP denied Petitioner's request for reconsideration because it was not filed within the time limits set by the OWCP. The OWCP decision also stated that a case could be reopened even if the request was untimely if the claimant presented "clear evidence" that the decision was erroneous. The OWCP concluded that Petitioner had not presented any such evidence and declined to reopen her case. (Debra Ross letter to Ms. Rygiel, filed by Respondent on November 27, 2000)

10. By Order dated November 29, 2000, the parties were advised that this case would now go forward.²  The parties were given until December 18, 2000 to file any additional evidence and argument they wished to have considered, and until December 29, 2000 to file any rebuttal evidence or argument. Neither party submitted anything further.

Petitioner challenged this debt collection action because her OWCP claim "has not yet been adjudicated." She does not deny receiving the COP payments. As Petitioner was advised in various Orders, a Debt Collection Act Hearing Official has no authority to review the decision of OWCP in granting or denying a workers’ compensation claim. Patsy L. Turner, P. S. Docket No. 99-311 (Nov. 19, 1999). The final decision of OWCP "is (1) final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact; and (2) not subject to review by another official of the United States or by a court by mandamus or otherwise." 5 U.S.C. §8128(b). Therefore, the hearing official has no authority to consider the substance of Petitioner’s workers’ compensation claim or to review the determination of OWCP that she was not entitled to benefits for the injury in question. See Brumley v. United States Department of Labor, 28 F.3d 746 (8^th Cir. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1082 (1995); Soeken v. Herman, 35 F. Supp.2d 99 (D.D.C. 1999); Mackay v. United States Postal Service, 607 F. Supp. 271, 274 (D. Penn. 1985). For purposes of this proceeding, therefore, it is conclusively presumed that Petitioner was not entitled to receive the COP benefits at issue.

Accordingly, as Petitioner's claim has now been adjudicated by the OWCP and Petitioner has not challenged the amount of the COP benefits that Respondent has demanded or raised any other issues, the Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $359.65 from Petitioner's salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

¹ The March 3, 2000 denial is not in the case file.

² The parties had been informed in an August 3, 2000 Order that this case would be decided on the written record.