P.S. Docket No. DCA 21-47


June 10, 2021

P.S. Docket No. DCA 21-47

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

JAMESE EILEEN PACE-WALLS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER
Jamese Eileen Pace-Walls

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
Sheena Hazel
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

The Postal Service assessed Jamese Eileen Pace-Walls with a $510.70 debt for the employee portion of federal employee health benefits (FEHB) premiums.  I conclude that Ms. Walls owes the Postal Service $509.28.1  
Ms. Walls claims severe financial hardship in repaying the debt because she is only receiving partial disability pay from the Department of Labor (DOL), presently is not working for the Postal Service because a suitable job is not available, and her household income is below the poverty line.  Because Ms. Walls’s total household income places her below the poverty line, the Postal Service intends to defer collection.  I remand the repayment plan to the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Ms. Walls began working for the Postal Service in July 2013 (Tr. 78).
  2. She was injured on the job on August 26, 2014.  The DOL approved her workers’ compensation claim and began making monthly payments.  Ms. Walls was also approved to work part-time with accommodations (i.e., a limited duty position).  (DOL Benefit Statement).
  3. Based on this injury, the DOL began to pay her $491.75 per pay period (which is $12,785.76 per year) on her workers compensation claim.  (DOL Benefit Statement).  She began to work part-time for the Postal Service.
  4. In May 2020, she was injured again.  The DOL denied her second claim and appeal.  (Tr. 68, 92; Resp. Exhs. 1, 2).
  5. Following the second injury, Ms. Walls requested another reasonable accommodation that would allow her to return to work.  The Postal Service was unable to accommodate her and placed her in a leave without pay (LWOP) status.  (Pet. Exh. 2; Tr. 79-80).
  6.  While Ms. Walls was in a LWOP status, she continued to be enrolled in the FEHB program and the Postal Service paid both the employer and employee portions of her FEHB premiums.  (Tr. 25-28; Resp. Exh. 6).
  7. The Postal Service assessed a debt of $795.99 which represents the employee FEHB premiums for five pay periods:  23-2020, 24-2020, 25-2020, 26-2020, and 1-2021.  Ms. Walls paid the Postal Service $286.71 for a portion of the FEHB premiums which reduced the debt to $509.28.  (Tr. 21-23; Resp. Exhs. 4, 6; Pet. Exh. 1).2
  8. Ms. Walls is still on the active employee rolls of the Postal Service (Tr. 24, 87-88, 96).
  9. Ms. Walls’s only income is from the DOL for her partial disability claim.  Her total household income places her below the poverty line for Richmond, Virginia.  (Tr. 89-90).
  10. Upon receiving a Letter of Demand for Indebtedness from the Postal Service, Ms. Walls filed a timely Petition (Pet. Exhs. 1, 4; Petition).3

DECISION

Under the Debt Collection Act, the Postal Service has the initial burden to establish that a debt exists for which an employee is liable.  Young v. United States Postal Service, AO 13-327, 2018 WL 1606047 (I.D. March 29, 2018).  In a case involving FEHB premiums, the Postal Service must establish that the employee was enrolled in the FEHB program during the period in which it seeks the overdue premiums and that it failed to collect those premiums from the employee for the same coverage period.  See, e.g., Lukas v. United States Dept. of Veterans Affairs, VA 17-135, 2018 WL 1362949 (February 14, 2018); Willis v. United States Postal Service, DCA 16-258, 2017 WL 5516578 (July 18, 2017).
Here, the Postal Service submitted exhibits and testimony that showed Ms. Walls was still enrolled in the FEHB program during the relevant five pay periods.  The Postal Service also provided evidence showing that it paid the FEHB premiums for Ms. Walls when she was in a LWOP status.  Based on this evidence, I conclude that the Postal Service has met its initial burden of proof and is entitled to collect $509.28 from Ms. Walls.
Ms. Walls argues that she wants to return to work in any capacity, but the Postal Service will not accommodate her injuries.  My authority is limited to whether Ms. Walls owes the assessed debt.  5 U.S.C. § 5514.  I do not have the authority to order the Postal Service to find a reasonable accommodation for Ms. Walls. 
Ms. Walls also explained that repaying any amount would increase the severe financial hardship she is currently experiencing.  Because she is still in a LWOP status, her household income is very limited.  In lieu of my setting a nominal repayment plan, the Postal Service agreed to defer collection pending a change in Ms. Walls household income (Tr. 96-98).  Once her household income changes, the parties will negotiate a repayment plan.

ORDER

The Petition is denied.  Ms. Walls owes the Postal Service $509.28.  The repayment plan is remanded to the parties for further negotiation consistent with this Decision.  If the parties are unable to agree to a repayment plan, either party may request that I determine one.

PETER F. PONTZER
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

1 Petitioner requested that she be referred to as Ms. Walls.

2 The record also includes a Letter of Demand and an invoice which identify the debt as $510.70 (Pet. Exhs. 1, 2).  Based on the testimony and other exhibits in the record, I conclude that the correct amount is $509.28 (Tr. 52; Pet. Exh. 3, Resp. Exh. 4).

3 The Postal Service subsequently assessed a new $523 debt for the next five pay periods: 2-2021, 3-2021, 4-2021, 5-2021, and 6-2021 (see Pet. Exh. 11).  This debt is not yet properly before me.  If Ms. Walls wants to challenge the new debt or any other FEHB debt, she should file another Petition.