In the Matter of the Petition by

ANTHONY VILLANUEVA
at
Vallejo, CA

P.S. Docket No. DCA 10-107

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Anthony Villanueva

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Jane L. Davis
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

                       Petitioner, Anthony Villanueva, filed a Petition for Hearing on April 22, 2010.  Respondent, United States Postal Service, sought to collect from Petitioner a debt in the amount of $664.80 based upon an alleged health insurance premium underpayment.  A hearing was held in Oakland, California on September 23, 2010.[1]  The following findings are based upon the record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1. Petitioner is an employee of Respondent and was enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) at all relevant times (Respondent’s Exh. 2; Petitioner’s Exh. 2; Tr., p. 11).[2]

            2. Regulations governing the FEHBP are found in 5 C.F.R. Part 890. Part of the cost of an employee’s health insurance is paid by the employing agency and the remainder of the premium is paid by the employee through payroll deductions each pay period. An employee is deemed to incur indebtedness to the United States in any pay period during which enrollment in the FEHBP continues, but a deduction for, or direct payment of, the employee's share of the premium is not made. 5 C.F.R. §890.502(a).

            3. Petitioner executed a health benefits worksheet on April 28, 2009, in which Petitioner sought to amend his current insurance plan from “self” to “family” to include his infant son who was born on February 26, 2009 (Tr., p. 10; Respondent’s Exh. 2).

            4. Employee and Labor Relations Manual §524.63 states that the effective date for a premium change as the result of a new child added to an existing health benefit plan is the first day of the pay period in which the child is born (Respondent’s Exh. 12).

            5. Respondent did not collect health premiums for Petitioner’s change in his health benefit plan for six consecutive pay periods in 2009 including the pay period in which Petitioner’s son was born (Respondent’s Exh. 8).

            6. The additional amount of health premium increase that should have been deducted during each of the six pay periods in question was $110.80 resulting in an underpayment of $664.80 (Id.).

            7. The debt amount of $664.80 is not in dispute (Tr., p. 21).

            8. The debt amount of $664.80 was collected by Respondent in advance of the hearing (Tr., pp. 21-22).[3]

DECISION

            Respondent seeks to collect $664.80 from Petitioner for an underpayment of medical health insurance benefit premiums for six pay periods in 2009 following the increase in Petitioner’s insurance premiums after the birth of Petitioner’s son (Findings 3-5).  Under the Debt Collection Act, the initial burden lies with Respondent to establish that Petitioner was covered under the FEHBP and that the premiums alleged to be due were not paid.  See Patricia A. McLean, P.S. Docket No. DCA 07-31 (April 30, 2007).  As this issue is not in dispute, Respondent has met its initial burden.

            Petitioner contends that he should not be held liable for the premiums due because the error was on the part of Respondent.  This is not a basis to avoid liability for premiums due under FEHBP in a Debt Collection Act proceeding.  See Stephen R. Dean, P.S. Docket No. DCA 09-168 (September 8, 2009); Victor Buenrostro, P.S. Docket No. DCA 08-25 (April 10, 2008); Shon C. Hogans, P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-17 (April 7, 2000).  Petitioner does not contest that he received the benefits in question, nor does Petitioner contest the amount of the premium debt asserted by Respondent.  In the absence of evidence to suggest that the debt amount is inaccurate, or that the benefit was never received by Petitioner for the period of time in question, Respondent is entitled to be reimbursed for the health premiums at issue.  Respondent has collected this debt prior to the hearing, thus no further payment is due from Petitioner (Finding 8).

CONCLUSION

            The Petition is DENIED. 

James G. Gilbert
Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1] The undersigned Administrative Law Judge presided via speaker telephone from the Judicial Officer Courtroom in Arlington, Virginia.

[2] Citations to the hearing transcript and page number appear as “Tr., p.__.”  Citations to exhibits admitted into the record are abbreviated to “Respondent’s Exh.” or “Petitioner’s Exh.”

[3] In my Order dated August 18, 2010, I found that Petitioner’s delay in filing of the Petition was excused for good cause.  In that Order, I also acknowledged that Respondent had collected the debt in full, but Respondent was not ordered to refund the money at that time unless required to do so after the hearing on the merits of the Petition.