September 15, 2017

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

HELENE MURLA v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

P.S. Docket No. DCA 17-58

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Helene Murla

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Luis A. Guerra, Esq.
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

The Postal Service assessed Helene Murla with three debts totaling $4,664.83 because Ms. Murla was paid by both the Postal Service and the Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWCP) for the same period of time.  Ms. Murla agrees that she was paid by both the Postal Service and OWCP for the same period of time, but asserts that the Postal Service overstated the amount of the debt by $1,246.58.  I rule in favor of the Postal Service which may collect $90 per pay period by involuntary administrative salary offset until the $4,664.83 is paid.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ms. Murla worked for the Postal Service for 35 years, the last 33 of which have been as a rural carrier (Tr. 33).
2. On June 22, 2016, Ms. Murla was driving her Postal Service vehicle on her route.  Another vehicle crossed the double yellow line in the center of the road and struck the Postal Service vehicle injuring Ms. Murla.
3. The Postal Service paid Ms. Murla continuation of pay (COP) from June 22 to July 22, 2016 (Resp. Exh. E).
4. On August 17, 2016, Ms. Murla submitted a form CA-1, Federal Employee’s Notice of Traumatic Injury and Claim for Continuation of Pay/Compensation.  OWCP determined on October 3, 2016, that Ms. Murla was not entitled to COP from June 23, 2016 to August 6, 2016.  However, in a separate decision, OWCP stated that her claim for traumatic injury had been accepted.  (Resp. Exh. A; Pet. Exhs. at 26, 27).
5. A form CA-7, Claim for Compensation, was submitted to the OWCP on March 17, 2017 (Pet. Exhs. at 19).
6. OWCP sent Ms. Murla a check for $6,709.01 on May 5, 2017, representing compensation for the period of June 22 to August 14, 2016, which overlaps with the time period she received COP from the Postal Service (Tr. 35; Resp. Exh. C; see also Pet. Supp. Exhs. Department of Labor Benefit Statement).
7. The Postal Service sent Ms. Murla a Letter of Demand for $2,226.71 (Pet. Exhs. at 10); the $2,226.71 represents the COP in pay period 14-2016.  (Resp. Exhs. E and F).¹
8. The Postal Service sent Ms. Murla a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset for $1,849.07 (Pet. Exhs. at 14); the $1,849.07 represents COP in pay period 15-2016.
9. The Postal Service sent Ms. Murla an invoice for $589.05 seeking reimbursement for taxes related to the COP for pay period 15-2016 (Pet. Exhs. at 12; Tr. 13; Resp. Exh. F).
10. The three debt assessments total $4,664.83.
11. The pay stub the Postal Service provided Ms. Murla for pay period 21-2016 shows that she received $46,864.19 in gross pay for the year-to-date.  The next pay stub the Postal Service provided to Ms. Murla for pay period 22-2016 shows that she received $45,617.61 in gross pay for the year to date, $1,246.58 less than shown on the previous pay stub.  (Pet. Exhs. at 17).
12. Ms. Murla filed a Petition challenging the three debt assessments.  Ms. Murla has waived further notice.  (Tr. 6).

DECISION

The Postal Service seeks to collect $4,664.83 for an overpayment of salary for the period in which Ms. Murla received both worker’s compensation benefits from OWCP and COP from the Postal Service.  Under the Debt Collection Act, the initial burden of proof lies with the Postal Service to establish that a debt exists for which Ms. Murla may be held liable.  See Victoria Bingham, DCA 09-177 (December 7, 2009). 
The Postal Service has shown that Ms. Murla received compensation from both OWCP and the Postal Service for June 22 to July 22, 2016.  When considering the number of work days, multiplied by eight hours a day, then multiplied by her hourly rate, the Postal Service has demonstrated that Ms. Murla received $4,664.83 in COP.² 
Once the Postal Service meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the employee to prove an excuse that either relieves the debt or reduces the amount.  See, e.g., Eudy v. United States Postal Service, DCA 16-225 (August 9, 2017).  Ms. Murla agrees that she received compensation from both OWCP and the Postal Service for the same period of time and that she is not entitled to dual compensation. 
However, Ms. Murla challenges the Postal Service’s calculation of $1,246.58 of the $4,664.83.  In support of her argument, Ms. Murla relies on two pay stubs which she argues show an error in the Postal Service’s calculations (Pet. Exhs. at 17).  Specifically, she emphasizes that the pay stub for pay period 21-2016 shows a gross pay of $46,864.19, which then drops by $1,246.58 in pay period 22-2016 to $45,617.61.  (Finding 11).  Ms. Murla argues because her gross pay dropped as shown by the pay stubs, the Postal Service’s calculations are incorrect and therefore she does not owe the difference.  Ms. Murla does not show how the calculation of the $4,664.83 was incorrect or that the amount of the assessed debt should be reduced by $1,246.58, only that the gross pay changed.
In response, the Postal Service produced relevant sections of the Payroll Journal which show how it calculated the $4,664.83 debt.  With regard to the difference between pay periods 21-2016 and 22-2016, the Postal Service explains that when it created a receivable for the salary overpayment, the gross pay dropped.  The Postal Service further explains that the drop is attributable to the Postal Service reducing the amount paid during the pay period when she was injured by the amount she was paid which yields $1,246.58 (Tr. 25-26).³
On balance, I believe that the Postal Service has shown that Ms. Murla was overpaid $4,664.83.  Her argument that her gross pay dropped four months after the accident does not show that the Postal Service’s calculation of the $4,664.83 was incorrect or should be reduced.  While the Postal Service’s explanation for reducing gross pay for the entire second week of a pay period while she was injured is not totally persuasive, it is not unreasonable.  In summary, when considering the Payroll Journal and the explanatory testimony, I conclude that while it may appear that there is an error, no error exists which reduces the assessed debt.  The Postal Service has proven that it is entitled to the $4,664.83 and Ms. Murla’s argument to the contrary is unpersuasive.
Ms. Murla requests an alternate repayment schedule of $90 per pay period and explained why a higher amount would cause a financial hardship.  The Postal Service does not oppose this alternate repayment schedule (Tr. 38).

ORDER

The Petition is denied.  The Postal Service may collect $90 per pay period by involuntary administrative salary offset until the $4,664.83 is paid.

Peter F. Pontzer
Administrative Judge