P.S. Docket No. DCA 23-108

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

The Postal Service seeks to collect a debt from Colette Snow for the employee portion of her health insurance premiums. Ms. Snow was on workers’ compensation beginning in 2016. She returned to work part-time in April 2022, but the Postal Service did not resume deducting money from her salary for health insurance until January 2023. Those uncollected premiums total $2,248.98. The record establishes that the failure to deduct for health insurance resulted from an administrative error by either the Postal Service or the Department of Labor. Nonetheless, the record also establishes that Ms. Snow had health insurance from April 2022 to January 2023. The Postal Service has therefore proved entitlement to collect the debt. Ms. Snow offered defenses to the debt, but none of them were sufficient to entitle her to relief. The petition is therefore denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Ms. Snow was a Postal Service employee at all times relevant to this dispute. In November 2015, she changed her health benefits plan from Code 105 (Family) to Code 104 (Individual) (Tr. 44–48; Resp. Exh. 11). Shortly thereafter, Ms. Snow was injured while on duty and went on workers’ compensation beginning in February 2016 (Tr. 23–24, 45, 97). While Ms. Snow was on workers’ compensation, the Department of Labor deducted money from Ms. Snow’s payments to cover the employee portion of her health insurance (Tr. 24).
Ms. Snow returned to work part-time (four hours a day) on April 28, 2022 (Tr. 14–15, 30–31; Pet. Exh. 1; Resp. Exh. 8 at 53¹ ). When Ms. Snow returned to work, the Postal Service resumed responsibility for her health insurance, meaning that the Postal Service should have begun collecting the employee portion of Ms. Snow’s premium (Tr. 25–26; Resp. Exh. 1, see Block 8). The Postal Service, however, did not do so, and no premiums were collected through Pay Period 1 in 2023 (Tr. 26, 39–41; Resp. Exh. 5). 
In late December 2022, the Postal Service finally made the necessary changes in its payroll system to begin deducting money from Ms. Snow’s salary for her health insurance (Pet. Exh. 1). The delay was caused by the failure of the local human resources office in Ms. Snow’s area to notify the national human resources office about Ms. Snow’s return to work. As soon as the national office learned about Ms. Snow’s return to work, it processed the necessary paperwork to resume the deductions. (Tr. 67–70).
On February 1, 2023, the Postal Service issued an invoice for $2,248.98. The invoice was based on the employee portion of Ms. Snow’s health insurance for pay periods 10-2022 to 01-2023.² (Resp. Exh. 3).³ When Ms. Snow did not pay the debt based on the invoice, the Postal Service issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset Under the Debt Collection Act. That notice stated the Postal Service’s intent to collect the debt by administrative offset, but it also provided Ms. Snow a chance to contest the debt by filing a petition with the Judicial Officer Department. (Resp. Exh. 4). Ms. Snow filed a petition in February 2023, and a hearing was held in July 2023. 

DECISION

Under the Debt Collection Act, the Postal Service has the initial burden to prove the existence and amount of an alleged debt. In a case involving health insurance premiums, the Postal Service must establish that (1) the employee was enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefit (FEHB) program, and (2) the Postal Service did not collect premiums from the employee in the relevant pay periods. Jacques v. United States Postal Service, DCA 22-70, 2022 WL 18134846 (December 16, 2022).
As to the first element, the Postal Service has proved that Ms. Snow was enrolled in an individual health care plan as of November 2015. Ms. Snow suggested that she cancelled (or tried to cancel) her insurance in 2020 (Tr. 16, 18), but there is no record of her doing so. As to the second element, Ms. Snow’s payroll journals for the relevant pay periods show that the Postal Service did not deduct money for the employee portion of her health insurance premiums in those pay periods (Resp. Exh. 5). The Postal Service has therefore met its initial burden of proof, and a rebuttable presumption is established that the Postal Service paid the employee’s portion of the premiums to the insurance company for the covered pay periods. Holly v. United States Postal Service, AO 14-404, 2015 WL 13647624 (May 11, 2015).
In her defense, Ms. Snow raised a series of arguments that she believes should excuse her from the debt:

• She was listed as “retired” by her insurance company (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) when she was on workers’ compensation (Tr. 16–17).
• She was on Medicaid during and after the time she was on workers’ compensation (Tr. 98–100).
• She did not know that responsibility for her insurance premiums had been transferred back to the Postal Service when she returned to work in April 2022 (Tr. 17–18).

As to the first two points, Ms. Snow never provided a coherent or rational connection between these arguments and her financial obligation to pay for her health insurance. Rather, her arguments consisted of nothing more than mere speculation and conjecture. As to the final point, her lack of knowledge about her responsibility for her health insurance also does not excuse the debt. The fact that the Postal Service made an administrative error by not deducting money for her insurance for eight months does not mean that Ms. Snow was entitled to free insurance. As we have held in other contexts, the fact that the Postal Service makes an administrative error does not excuse an employee from an otherwise valid debt. Rowan v. United States Postal Service, DCA 20-43, 2020 WL 6800310 (October 5, 2020) (citing Riemer v. United States Postal Service, AO 15-286, 2016 WL 10572236 (April 15, 2016) (holding that an employee who is overpaid due to an administrative error generally is not entitled to keep the overpayment even if the employee was not at fault)). 

ORDER

The petition is denied. The Postal Service may collect the debt underlying this petition by involuntary administrative salary offset. Before any collection action is taken, however, the debt is remanded to the parties for the negotiation of a repayment schedule. If the parties are not able to negotiate a repayment schedule, they should notify my office. I will then reopen the petition for the purpose of setting a repayment schedule.