P.S. Docket No. DCA 07-91

In the Matter of the Petition by
SHARON A. CANARIO

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Sharon A. Canario

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Connie M. Marvin
Manager, Labor Relations
United States Postal Service

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Sharon Canario, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving an invoice and letter of indebtedness stating the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $4,217.91 from her salary to recover a salary overpayment.

            The alleged debt that is the subject of this case is for Continuation of Pay (COP) received by Petitioner in 2004.  The Postal Service’s claim is based on denial by the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), U.S. Department of Labor, of Petitioner’s injury compensation claim.  During a telephone conference with the parties on April 16, 2007,      Petitioner stated that she had not challenged the OWCP decision through their appeal process because she never received their letter denying her claim.  I informed the parties that we would suspend further action on this case for a short time so that Petitioner could contact the OWCP and make a request to have her case re-opened there if she chose to do that.

            By May 4, 2007, Petitioner was to inform this office, and Ms. Marvin, of the status of her request to the OWCP.  The parties were told that, if the OWCP had not agreed to re-open the case, this Debt Collection Act case would proceed and would be decided on written submissions.

            Petitioner filed no further information, and an Order dated May 10, 2007 gave the parties a timetable for filing additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer.  Respondent filed some additional documents.  Petitioner did not.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material filed by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  On April 17, 2004, Petitioner filed an injury compensation claim through proper Postal Service channels, and her claim was referred to the Boston, Massachusetts Office of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), U. S. Department of Labor.  (Answer, Exs. 1 and 2; Marvin Declaration).

            2.  In accordance with applicable provisions of the U. S. Code, Title 5, Section 8118, Petitioner continued to be paid while she was absent from work.  This is called “continuation of pay “(COP).  (Answer, Ex. 3).

            3.  On July 9, 2004, the OWCP denied Petitioner’s claim.  The denial letter informed Petitioner that her agency would, at her option, charge her COP to her sick leave and/or annual leave, or would treat the COP as an overpayment to be collected back.  (Answer, Ex. 2).

            4.  During her absence from work, Petitioner received a total of 240 hours of COP in pay periods 10-13 of 2004.  The net amount of money received was $4,217.91.  (Marvin Declaration; time and attendance records attached).

            5.  The record does not disclose the reason for the lengthy delay, but a Letter of Indebtedness was issued to Petitioner on March 14, 2007, with a March 7, 2007 invoice attached, explaining the basis for the alleged debt.[1]  (Attached to Petition and Answer).

DECISION

            As was explained to the parties during the April 16 telephone conference, and again in the May 10 Order, a Debt Collection Act Hearing Official has no authority to review a final OWCP decision.  The Postal Service’s burden of proof in a case such as this is only to show that the injury compensation claim was denied and that the amount of the COP debt was calculated correctly.

            Although Respondent’s documentary evidence is sketchy, and Respondent’s representative submitted her own hearsay Declaration, rather than a Declaration from someone who had direct knowledge of the facts, Respondent’s evidence is sufficient in this case.  Petitioner has not challenged any of the facts put forth by Respondent, has filed no evidence of her own, and has submitted no argument as to why she does not owe the alleged debt.

            The Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $4,217.91 from Petitioner’s salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1] The initial Order issued in this case noted that it appeared that no Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets had been issued to Petitioner.  Generally, until that Notice is issued, the Postal Service may not collect a debt by offset from an employee’s pay, and the employee is not entitled to a Debt Collection Act hearing under 39 C.F.R. Part 961.  Respondent was directed to address this in its Answer.  Respondent did not do so, but in discussion with the parties during the telephone conference on April 16, it was decided that, although Respondent had combined two procedural steps into one, no useful purpose would be served by requiring the Postal Service to go back and issue a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets at that time.