In the Matter of the Petition by

DRAGUTIN NIKOLIC
5845 89th Avenue
at
Pinellas Park, FL 33782-4920
P.S. Docket No. DCA 04-176

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Dragutin Nikolic
5845 89th Avenue
Pinellas Park, FL  33782-4920

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Cindy S. Beierlein
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1042
Tampa, FL  33607-7142

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
 

            The alleged debt in this case is Respondent’s attempt to collect back Continuation of Pay (COP) payments made to Petitioner for a period of time for which the Department of Labor denied Petitioner’s claim for injury compensation.

            In his Petition, Mr. Nikolic stated that he believed the Department of Labor decision would be reversed and there would, therefore, be no debt.  He objected to Respondent’s pursuit of the alleged debt while DOL action is still pending.

            In cases such as this, when appeal of a DOL ruling is pending, it is our practice to suspend action on the Debt Collection Act case and wait until the DOL case is final.  We must have some written confirmation, however, that the DOL case is still active.

            During a telephone conference on March 9, 2005, Petitioner stated that he did not know whether an appeal of the DOL ruling had been filed, but that two attorneys are representing him in these matters.  Petitioner had provided the names of those attorneys earlier when we were first attempting to schedule a telephone conference.  Our secretary called the offices of each and was told that the attorneys were not involved in this Debt Collection Act case.

            Because Mr. Nikolic filed this Petition himself, without any attorney appearing on his behalf, he was directed, by an Order dated March 17, 2005, to either have one of the attorneys send us the necessary documents, or get the documents from the attorney and send them himself.  He was also told that we would deal directly with either attorney if the attorney wished to appear on Petitioner’s behalf in this case.  Petitioner did not respond.

            All the mail from this office to Petitioner, Mr. Nikolic, has been sent by certified mail to the address that he provided in his Petition.  Other than the original Notice of Docketing, which Petitioner received on December 20, 2004, all the mail has been returned unclaimed.  In addition, we have made many unsuccessful attempts to reach Petitioner to set up another telephone conference to discuss the status of the case, and have re-sent some documents, including the March 17 Order, by regular mail.

            An April 25, 2005 Order was sent to Mr. Nikolic by both certified and regular mail.  The Order directed him, on receipt of it, to call this office at the number contained on the Order so that a telephone conference could be arranged.  The Order stated that if Petitioner did not respond by May 11, 2005, the case would be dismissed.  Petitioner has not responded. 

            Our records do not show that Petitioner ever picked up the certified mail pieces containing the March 17 Order or the April 25 Order, although notices of each were left for him on March 21, 2005 and April 29, 2005, respectively.  It is the duty of any litigant to retrieve in a timely manner any mail that is sent to him at the address he has provided.  Failure to do so does not excuse failure to comply with orders issued in the case.  Sindy D. Thomas, P. S. Docket No. POB 02-96 (P.S.D. Feb. 28, 2003); Christian Duru and Femmy Akene, P. S. Docket No. MD 00-490 (P.S.D. March 21, 2001).

            In accordance with our Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. §961.10(c), Petitioner is deemed to have waived his right to further proceedings in this case.  Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.  Respondent may collect the debt in accordance with the November 8, 2004 Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston
                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge