P.S. Docket No. DCA 21-530

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

The Postal Service seeks to collect a debt from Ashley Terry for the value of continuation of pay after Ms. Terry’s workers’ compensation claim was denied by the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs in the Department of Labor. As explained below, the Postal Service has failed to meet its burden of proof. The petition is therefore granted.  

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ms. Terry alleges that she was injured at work in late February 2020 (Tr. 12–13). A few days later, her supervisor took her to the emergency room (Tr. 12–13, 19). Shortly after that, Ms. Terry filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits with OWCP (Tr. 13, 20–22). OWCP denied Ms. Terry’s claim in June 2020 because she was examined by a medical practitioner and not by a medical doctor (Tr. 12–13, 15; Resp. Exh. 2).  
2. From March 10 until April 23, 2020, the Postal Service paid Ms. Terry 264 hours of continuation of pay (COP) (Resp. Exhs. 1–2; Tr. 15).  
3. On November 25, 2021, the Postal Service issued an invoice to Ms. Terry for $6,179.42 based on the value of the COP (Pet. Exh. 1).   

DECISION

Postal Service employees who believe they have suffered a job-related traumatic injury may file a claim for workers’ compensation with OWCP. 5 U.S.C. § 8118(a); Employee and Labor Relations Manual, § 541.1 (Mar. 2022). Under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, employees may receive up to 45 days of COP while OWCP adjudicates their claim. 5 U.S.C. § 8118(b)(2). During the 45-day period, the employee continues to receive a regular salary from the Postal Service. 20 C.F.R. § 10.200. But if OWCP denies the claim, the employee is required to return any COP paid by the Postal Service. 5 U.S.C. § 8118(d); Summers v. United States Postal Service, DCA Nos. 17-254 and 17-255, 2018 WL 6000714 (October 22, 2018); Moss v. United States Postal Service, DCA 15-220, 2015 WL 13647644 (November 13, 2015). 
Here, the Postal Service alleges that Ms. Terry was not entitled to the COP payments she received because her workers’ compensation claim was denied by OWCP. It now seeks to collect the monetary value of those hours, which the Postal Service claims is $6,179.42. To prevail on its claim, the Postal Service must meet its initial burden of proving both the existence and amount of the debt by a preponderance of the evidence. Billy v. United States Postal Service, DCA 21-316, 2022 WL 622383 (February 23, 2022). To meet that burden, the Postal Service relied on the documents in the record, but it did not call any witnesses. 
As to the existence of the debt, a simple review of the record shows that Ms. Terry was paid 264 hours of COP, and Ms. Terry conceded that OWCP denied her workers’ compensation claim. Therefore, even with no testimony, I find that the Postal Service has met its burden of proof on that limited issue. McCrary v. United States Postal Service, DCA 16-269, 2017 WL 5516580 (August 9, 2017) (discussing the difference between a case in which a party may meet its burden of proof by merely relying on the record and a case in which testimony is necessary).    
The Postal Service, however, presented no evidence about the amount of the debt other than the bare assertion that it totaled $6,179.42. Instead, as noted, the Postal Service relied on the documents in the record to prove the amount of the debt. Although this is an administrative hearing and many formalities of a proceeding governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may not apply, the parties are still primarily responsible for presenting evidence supporting their positions that meets the applicable burdens of proof. Put another way, this proceeding is an adversarial process, and the parties may not rely on the presiding judge to do their work for them. If one party does not present evidence supporting a required element of its case, it risks losing based on its failure to meet its burden of proof. McCrary, DCA 16-269. Indeed, in our pre-trial telephone conference, I reminded the Postal Service that it had to meet its burden of proof even if it chose not to call any witnesses.
With that standard in mind, and under these facts, I find that the Postal Service has not proved the amount of the debt by a preponderance of the evidence. The Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset claims that the 264 hours of COP are worth $6,179.42, which equates to $23.41 per hour. Ms. Terry’s payroll journal shows that she was making $25.67 per hour in pay periods 6 and 7 of 2020. She was making $26.45 per hour in pay periods 8 and 9. It thus appears that the Postal Service’s calculation of the debt was not based on Ms. Terry’s gross pay but factored in deductions from the gross amount. The Postal Service, however, did not explain what those deductions were. It might be possible for me—through a process of trial and error—to recreate the calculations the Postal Service used to arrive at $23.41 per hour for the value of the COP. But that is not a judge’s responsibility in an adversarial proceeding. That burden rested with the Postal Service. Having now failed to meet that burden, the Postal Service cannot prevail in this petition.

ORDER

The petition is granted. The Postal Service may not collect the debt underlying this petition by involuntary administrative salary offset.