$05:Civil Money Penalty
Department of Health and Human Services
DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Civil Remedies Division
In the Case of: Department of Health and Human Services
- v. -
Linda J. Adams, Respondent.
DATE: August 1, 1994
Docket No. C-94-291
Decision No. CR324
DECISION
This Debt Collection Act case was heard pursuant to a request for
hearing filed by Linda J. Adams (Respondent) in which she denied
allegations made by the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) that she was indebted to it for a salary overpayment in the
amount of $3,946.99. After considering the entire record, I find
that DHHS has shown that an overpayment occurred and that a debt in
the amount of $3,867.35 is due and owing from Respondent. I find
further that Respondent's request for payment below the minimum
payment schedule because of extreme financial hardship should be
granted and that Respondent's request for a waiver should be
considered pursuant to the process set forth in the DHHS Personnel
Manual.
BACKGROUND STATEMENT
On August 2, 1993, DHHS issued to Respondent a Certification of
Salary Overpayment (Certification) in the amount of $3,946.99. The
Certification informed her also that, failing her voluntary
repayment, DHHS intended to collect the debt by deducting 15
percent of her biweekly disposable pay until the debt was
satisfied. This Certification constituted a notice of debt
according to the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 as
amended. 5 U.S.C. 5514.
In response to the Certification, Respondent filed several timely
requests for a hearing. DHHS Ex. 1; 1/ R. Exs. 1, 3. In the
requests, Respondent alleged that DHHS should not be allowed to
collect any overpayment, because the Department of Labor (DOL) had
not finally adjudicated whether she was entitled to continuation of
pay (COP) during this period. R. Ex. 1. Alternatively, if there
was an overpayment, Respondent requested a waiver of the
overpayment or a reduced repayment schedule, because of extreme
financial hardship. DHHS Ex. 1; R. Ex. 3. Finally, Respondent
requested that she be granted a hearing on a Certification of
Salary Overpayment which DHHS issued for pay she received in August
1989. DHHS Ex. 1. Participating in this proceeding were
Respondent; Respondent's representative, Frank Comito of the
American Federation of Government Employees; and the DHHS
representative, Kevin Short (Employee Benefit Specialist). The
parties agreed at the June 13, 1994 conference that this case could
be decided on the admissions in that conference and the documentary
evidence submitted by the parties. ALJ Ex. 1.
ISSUES
The issues presented for decision are:
(1) whether there is a valid debt which is presently owed by
Respondent to DHHS;
(2) whether Respondent should be allowed to make payments
below the minimum payment schedule because of extreme financial
hardship; and
(3) whether I should consider the merits of Respondent's
request for a waiver of this debt.
APPLICABLE STATUTES, REGULATIONS,
AND POLICIES
Statutes:
5 U.S.C. 5514; 5 U.S.C. 5584; 5 U.S.C. 8101; 5 U.S.C.
8118.
Federal Regulations and Manuals:
20 C.F.R. Part 10, Subpart C, Part 501; 45 C.F.R. Part 16; 45
C.F.R. Part 30.
DHHS Personnel Manual Instruction 550-8 (June 7, 1990); Instruction
550-9 (May 5, 1988).
Federal Personnel Manual, Chapter 810, 5-1 (June 21, 1988).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
Having considered the entire record, arguments, and submissions of
the parties, and being advised fully, I make the following Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FFCL):
1. By letter dated February 1, 1994 (Request), the Regional
Personnel Office, DHHS Region II, requested that the Departmental
Appeals Board (DAB) conduct a hearing concerning the August 2, 1993
Certification issued to Respondent.
2. The Request was received by the DAB on February 8, 1993. Id.
3. The DAB has jurisdiction in the matter pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
5514; 45 C.F.R. Part 30; and DHHS Personnel Manual 550-9.
4. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed by the Social
Security Administration (SSA) in Camden, New Jersey. DHHS Ex. 6.
5. This case occurred in the context of Respondent's ongoing
efforts to establish that she has suffered an employment-related
injury or to have DHHS reasonably accommodate her alleged
disability. DHHS Exs. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13; R. Exs. 1, 5.
6. This case is related to a timely claim for workers'
compensation filed by Respondent pursuant to the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq., for an alleged
employment-related injury of June 9, 1992. DHHS Ex. 6.
7. In connection with her absences resulting from this alleged
injury, Respondent received COP benefits as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
8118. Id.
8. The Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP), Employment
Standards Administration of DOL, has jurisdiction over the question
of whether an employee has suffered an employment-related injury
and whether the employee is entitled to COP. 20 C.F.R.
10.2(a), 10.201(d).
9. If OWCP determines that an employee is not entitled to COP
after it has been paid, the payments, at the employee's option,
shall be charged to annual or sick leave or considered overpayments
of pay under 5 U.S.C. 5584. 20 C.F.R. 10.201(e).
10. Respondent's June 9, 1992 workers' compensation claim was
rejected by OWCP on October 16, 1992. DHHS Ex. 6.
11. After OWCP's initial denial of a workers' compensation claim,
a claimant can request an oral hearing before OWCP, a review of the
written record by OWCP, a reconsideration by OWCP, and, finally, a
hearing before the DOL Employees' Compensation Appeals Board
(ECAB). 20 C.F.R. 10.130 - 10.139, Part 501.
12. Respondent appealed OWCP's rejection of her June 9, 1992
claim. The issue of whether she was unable to work because of a
work-related injury and was entitled to COP during the period
following June 9, 1992 remains on appeal before DOL. ALJ Ex. 1.
13. Pursuant to OWCP's rejection of Respondent's June 9, 1992
claim, Respondent's supervisor informed the Regional Personnel
Office that the COP Respondent had received subsequent to June 9,
1992 had been denied and should now be deemed an overpayment. DHHS
Ex. 6.
14. Respondent's supervisor indicated also that, because of OWCP's
denial of COP, certain sick and annual leave hours which Respondent
had taken in September, October, and November had not been earned
and also should be converted to leave without pay. Id.
15. By a Certification dated August 2, 1993, the Assistant
Director for the Personnel and Pay Systems Division notified
Respondent that she had been overpaid in the amount of $3,946.99.
DHHS Ex. 5.
16. The Certification did not reference any time period, but the
attached audit indicated that the overpayment was calculated on the
basis of Respondent's time and attendance records from June 13,
1992 through November 14, 1992. Id.
17. The audit papers attached to the Certification identified the
overpayment amount as $3,867.35 rather than $3,946.99. In the June
13, 1994 conference call, the Employee Benefits Specialist agreed
that the amount of the debt was the lower figure of $3,867.35. ALJ
Ex. 1.
18. In response to the Certification, Respondent filled or had
filed on her behalf, several documents: (1) a "Hearing Request
Form" requesting a hearing on the overpayment and a waiver of the
overpayment (DHHS Ex. 1); (2) a letter dated August 18, 1992 to the
Assistant Director for the Personnel and Pay Systems Division
appealing the overpayment (R. Ex. 1); and (3) a "Hearing Request
Form" requesting a hearing, a repayment plan below the minimum
payment schedule, and a waiver (R. Ex. 3).
19. While Respondent continues to challenge the validity of OWCP's
denial of her claim for her alleged injury of June 9, 1992, she
does not dispute that, if OWCP's denial is sustained on appeal, she
is indebted to DHHS in the amount of $3,867.35. ALJ Ex. 1.
20. The fact that Respondent's workers' compensation claim for her
alleged injury of June 9, 1992 is still on appeal before DOL is not
a bar to the right of DHHS to institute collection procedures for
the overpayment at issue.
21. When an employee of the United States is indebted to the
United States, the United States may recoup that indebtedness by
installment deductions from the employee's current pay account.
Such deductions may not exceed, except with the consent of the
employee, 15 percent of disposable pay. 5 U.S.C. 5514.
22. The DHHS Personnel Manual provides that,
if the hearing officer determines that the proposed salary offset
will cause extreme financial hardship, the hearing officer may
accept either the debtor's proposed alternative offset schedule or
direct offset of the maximum amount that will not impose extreme
financial hardship on the debtor. DHHS Personnel Manual,
Instruction 550-9-80.D.2. The provision at 550-9-80.D. sets
standards for determining whether the proposed offset will "impose
extreme financial hardship."
23. DHHS has proposed to deduct 15 percent of Respondent's
disposable biweekly pay until the debt is satisfied. DHHS Ex. 5.
Further, the Employee Benefits Specialist represented that DHHS
would be willing to accept slightly less than $100 on a biweekly
basis. ALJ Ex. 1.
24. Respondent requested that she be allowed to repay any
overpayment found due and owing at a rate below the minimum payment
schedule on the grounds that payment at the minimum schedule would
cause extreme financial hardship. R. Ex. 3.
25. Respondent filed a statement concerning her income and
expenses which was uncontested by DHHS. Respondent represented
that she, her husband, and her daughter live on her earnings, which
are averaging less than $1,000 a month, and her daughter's
Supplemental Security Income payment of less than $500 a month.
Respondent represented that she has expenses of $1,775 a month
including high medical and transportation costs. R. Ex. 6.
26. Respondent demonstrated that to repay the debt at the minimum
payment schedule would cause extreme financial hardship at the
present time. R. Ex. 6.
27. Respondent requested that this debt be waived. DHHS Ex. 1; R.
Ex. 3.
28. A claim of the United States arising out of erroneous payment
of pay may be waived if the collection of the claim would be
against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of
the United States. 5 U.S.C. 5584.
29. DHHS has established policies and procedures for considering
such waiver requests. DHHS Personnel Manual, Instruction 550-8.
30. Alternatively, when a waiver request is made simultaneously
with or during the pendency of a request for a hearing on the debt,
the waiver request may be referred for decision to the hearing
officer reviewing the debt. 45 C.F.R. 30.15(p).
31. The Employee Benefits Specialist requested the DAB to conduct
a hearing on the debt, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5514. Therefore,
Respondent's 5 U.S.C. 5584 waiver request was not "referred for
decision" to the DAB pursuant to 45 C.F.R. 30.15(p). Request.
32. Respondent requested that a hearing on her alleged overpayment
of August 1989 be conducted concurrently with the hearing on the
August 2, 1993 Certification. DHHS Ex. 1.
33. By a Certification of Salary Overpayment dated May 11, 1992,
DHHS claimed that Respondent was indebted in the amount of
$1,586.75 for pay she received in August 1989. DHHS Ex. 10.
34. Respondent received the disputed pay while on approved court
leave for jury duty. DHHS Ex. 8.
35. Subsequently, DHHS adjusted Respondent's leave record to leave
without pay and issued the May 11, 1992 Certification. Id.
36. On June 18, 1993, the Chief Counsel, DHHS Region II, denied
Respondent's request for a waiver of the August 1989 overpayment.
Id.
37. Respondent represented that she had previously requested a
hearing on the August 1989 overpayment. DHHS Ex. 1.
38. In this proceeding, Respondent filed documents supporting her
representations that she requested such a hearing. R. Ex. 4.
39. On June 22, 1994, I issued a Remand Order requiring DHHS to
process Respondent's request for a hearing on the August 1989
overpayment pursuant to the DHHS Personnel Manual.
40. In this proceeding, DHHS filed a number of documents
concerning a workers' compensation claim made by Respondent for an
alleged injury suffered December 29, 1992. See DHHS Exs. 2, 3, 4,
7.
41. The documents referred to in FFCL 33 - 40 have no relevance to
the overpayment at issue in this case.
42. There is a valid debt which is presently owed by Respondent to
DHHS in the amount of $3,867.35. FFCL 6 -20.
43. Respondent should be allowed to repay the debt under an
alternative payment schedule because of extreme financial hardship.
FFCL 21 - 26.
44. I do not have the authority to consider the merits of
Respondent's request for a waiver of this debt. FFCL 27 - 31.
DISCUSSION
I. There is a valid debt which is presently owed by Respondent
to DHHS.
Respondent received COP in connection with a workers' compensation
claim filed for an alleged injury of June 9, 1992. The purpose of
COP is "to eliminate interruption of the employee's income while
the claim (workers' compensation) is being adjudicated." Federal
Personnel Manual, Ch. 810, 5-1. The maximum period of payment
of COP is 45 days. 5 U.S.C. 8118. An employee has a choice as
to whether to use annual or sick leave to cover absences or request
COP. 20 C.F.R. 10.202. In conjunction with her June 9, 1992
claim, Respondent received COP. FFCL 7.
Subsequently, OWCP determined that Respondent had not suffered a
compensable injury and denied her claim of June 9, 1992.
Respondent's time and attendance records were then adjusted and an
overpayment assessed for the COP she received pursuant to the
claim. FFCL 10, 13 - 16.
In certifying the overpayment, DHHS acted in accordance with the
regulations governing the payment of COP. Section 10.201(e) of 20
C.F.R. provides:
If the Office [OWCP] finds that the employee is not entitled
to continuation of pay after it has been paid, the payments, at the
employee's option, shall be charged to annual or sick leave or
considered overpayments of pay under 5 U.S.C. 5584.
Since Respondent did not have annual or sick leave to cover the
absences in question, the COP was properly determined to be an
overpayment of pay. FFCL 9, 42.
Respondent did not contest that, if OWCP's denial of her claim for
an injury of June 9, 1992 is correct, then an overpayment occurred
in the amount of $3,867.35. FFCL 19. However, Respondent argued
that, until the DOL's entire process for adjudicating her claim for
workers' compensation is completed, DHHS cannot certify a salary
overpayment and proceed to collect it. Respondent identified no
authority for her position that DHHS must forbear collection until
the DOL administrative adjudication process is completed.
Under the workers' compensation regulations, a claimant has several
further administrative review alternatives after OWCP's initial
denial of a claim. The claimant can request an oral hearing before
OWCP, a review of the written record by OWCP, a reconsideration by
OWCP, and, finally, a hearing before the ECAB. 20 C.F.R.
10.130 - 10.139. The ECAB is independent of OWCP and identified
separately from OWCP under the regulations. 20 C.F.R. 139. The
ECAB makes the final administrative review of a workers'
compensation claim. FFCL 11.
I conclude that OWCP's October 16, 1992 denial of Respondent's
claim for her June 9, 1992 injury is a sufficient basis for DHHS'
certification of a salary overpayment and that DHHS is entitled to
collect that overpayment. Section 10.201(e) of 20 C.F.R. provides
that, if OWCP finds that the employee is not entitled to COP after
COP has been paid, the payments must be charged to annual or sick
leave or considered an overpayment of pay. If DOL had intended
that erroneously paid COP could not be considered an overpayment
until the entire DOL administrative adjudication process was
complete, it would have framed 20 C.F.R. 10.201(e) in terms of
the ECAB's decision on COP rather than OWCP's decision. Because
the regulation refers to the decision of OWCP, I conclude that
OWCP's decision is a sufficient basis for certification of an
overpayment. FFCL 9, 20.
Further, I conclude that OWCP's initial denial of COP, rather than
its subsequent hearing or reconsideration decisions, is sufficient
basis for certification of an overpayment. The regulation at 20
C.F.R. 10.204(a)(5) provides that the employing agency must
terminate an employee's COP if the OWCP notifies the agency that
COP should be terminated. An OWCP decision instructing an agency
to terminate COP would ordinarily be an initial denial since an
employee may receive COP for only 45 days. The fact that OWCP's
initial denial is a basis for terminating COP supports my
conclusion that OWCP's initial denial also is a basis for
determining that COP should not have been paid and that an
overpayment has occurred.
Finally, the overpayment regulations address the question of what
happens if an overpayment certification is reversed after
collection has begun. The regulation at 45 C.F.R. 30.15(j)(10)
provides that "amounts collected and later . . . found not owed
will be promptly refunded." Should Respondent prevail in her
workers' compensation case, any money and interest recouped as a
result of this decision should be refunded to her.
Therefore, the Employee Benefits Specialist having concurred that
the amount of the debt is $3,867.35 rather than $3,946.99, I find
a debt in the amount of $3,867.35 presently claimed by DHHS is due
and owing by Respondent. FFCL 42. Because Respondent's hearing
request was not forwarded to the DAB in time to issue the decision
in accordance with the 60-day time standard set forth in 5 U.S.C.
5514(a)(2), I find that interest on this debt should not begin to
accrue until the date of this decision.
II. Respondent should be allowed to repay the debt under an
alternative payment schedule because of extreme financial hardship.
When an employee of the United States is indebted to the United
States, 5 U.S.C. 5514 authorizes installment deductions from the
employee's current pay account. It provides also that the
deductions may not exceed, except with the consent of the employee,
15 percent of disposable pay. FFCL 21. Additionally, 550-9-80D.2
of the DHHS Personnel Manual provides that:
[i]f the hearing officer determines that the proposed offset
will cause extreme financial hardship, he or she may either accept
the debtor's proposed alternative offset schedule or direct offset
of the maximum amount that will not impose extreme financial
hardship on the debtor.
The provision at 550-9-80.D sets standards for my determination as
the hearing officer on whether the proposed offset will "impose
extreme financial hardship." It defines extreme financial hardship
as "whether the proposed offset will prevent the debtor from
meeting costs necessary for essential subsistence expenses for the
debtor, his or her spouse, and his or her dependents." FFCL 22.
In this case, DHHS proposed to deduct 15 percent of Respondent's
disposable biweekly pay until the debt is satisfied. Further, in
a telephone conference of June 13, 1994, the Employee Benefits
Specialist represented that DHHS would be willing to accept
slightly less than $100 on a biweekly basis. FFCL 23.
Respondent represented that repayment of this debt will cause
extreme financial hardship for her and her family. Respondent
filed a statement concerning her income and expenses. At the
present time, the only income Respondent, her husband, and her
daughter have are Respondent's earnings, which are averaging less
than $1000 a month, and Respondent's daughter's Supplemental
Security Income payment of less than $500 a month. Respondent
represented that she has expenses of $1775 a month, including high
medical and transportation costs. FFCL 25.
I find that a deduction of 15 percent of Respondent's disposable
pay will cause extreme financial hardship. FFCL 26. Therefore, I
order this debt to be repaid at a rate of 10 percent of
Respondent's disposable pay, i.e., that part of Respondent's pay
remaining after the deduction from her earnings of any amounts
required by law to be withheld. Since Respondent's pay fluctuates
according to the number of hours Respondent is able to work, the
amount actually recouped by DHHS will fluctuate accordingly.
III. I do not have the authority to consider the merits of
Respondent's request for a waiver of this debt.
Under 5 U.S.C. 5584, a claim of the United States arising out of
erroneous payment of pay may be waived. That section provides:
(a) A claim of the United States against a person arising out
of an erroneous payment of pay . . . to an employee of an agency,
the collection of which would be against equity and good conscience
and not in the best interests of the United States, may be waived
in whole or in part by--
(1) the Comptroller General of the United States; or
(2) the head of the agency when--
(A) the claim is in an amount aggregating not more
than $500;
* * *
(B) the waiver is made in accordance with standards
which the Comptroller General shall prescribe.
Respondent requested a waiver pursuant to this statute. FFCL 27.
In Instruction 550-8 of the DHHS Personnel Manual, DHHS has
established policies and procedures for considering such waiver
requests. The Secretary of DHHS (Secretary) will approve or
recommend approval of a request for waiver of a claim "when the
facts show that the conditions set forth in the regulations of the
Comptroller General are met" in accordance with the Department's
guidelines. 2/ The guidelines are set out at 550-8-30. FFCL 29.
The provision at 550-8-50 sets forth detailed procedures for
considering waiver requests. First, a personnel officer conducts
an investigation of the circumstance of the overpayment and makes
a report to a reviewing official. The reviewing official reviews
the personnel officer's findings and makes a recommendation for
approval or disapproval of the waiver to a deciding official. If
the amount is less than $500, the deciding official then makes a
final decision on the waiver request. If the amount is greater
than $500, the deciding official may deny the waiver request or
recommend approval. If the deciding official recommends approval,
the complete file is forwarded to the Comptroller General through
the Chief, Administrative Law Branch, Business and Administrative
Law Division, Office of General Counsel. FFCL 29.
In addition to the provisions set forth in the DHHS Personnel
Manual, 45 C.F.R. 30.15(p) provides that waiver requests are to
be handled pursuant to the DHHS Personnel Manual " . . . except
that a waiver request made simultaneously with or during the
pendency of a request of review under this section may be referred
for a decision under the waiver standards to the hearing officer
reviewing the debt under this section." FFCL 30.
While Respondent requested a waiver simultaneously with her request
for hearing on the overpayment, the waiver request was not
"referred for decision" pursuant to 45 C.F.R. 30.15(p). Rather,
the Request from the Employee Benefits Specialist requested a
hearing on the debt under 5 U.S.C. 5514, not a hearing on the
waiver request under 5 U.S.C. 5584. FFCL 31, 44. Therefore, I
do not have authority to consider Respondent's waiver request.
Subsequent to my decision on this overpayment, the Employee
Benefits Specialist should initiate the procedure set forth in the
DHHS Personnel Manual for consideration of Respondent's request for
a waiver.
It is so Ordered.
____________________________
Charles E. Stratton
Administrative Law Judge
APPENDIX
RECITATION OF THE RECORD THAT WAS REVIEWED
I admitted the following exhibits in this case:
DHHS Ex. 1: "Hearing Request Form" filed by Respondent for
hearing on the August 2, 1993 Certification of Salary Overpayment
of $3,946.99.
DHHS Ex. 2: "Federal Employee's Notice of Traumatic Injury
and Claim for Continuation of Pay" (DOL Form CA-1) filed by
Respondent for an alleged injury of December 29, 1992.
DHHS Ex. 3: Transmittal to Respondent's supervisor of
correspondence from OWCP to Respondent concerning the December 1992
injury.
DHHS Ex. 4: Transmittal to Respondent's supervisor of
OWCP's rejection of Respondent's claim for the December 29, 1992
injury.
DHHS Ex. 5: Certification of Salary Overpayment for the
period June 13, 1992 through November 14, 1992 with attached audit.
DHHS Ex. 6: Respondent's supervisor's correspondence to the
Regional Personnel Office concerning OWCP's denial of Respondent's
claim for an alleged injury suffered June 9, 1992. Attached are
the OWCP decision and earnings and leave statements concerning the
June -November 1992 time period.
DHHS Ex. 7: Respondent's supervisor's memo to the Regional
Personnel Office concerning DOL's denial of Respondent's December
1992 claim.
DHHS Ex. 8: Region II Chief Counsel's decision denying
Respondent's request for a waiver of the August 1989 overpayment.
DHHS Ex. 9: Composite exhibit of documents concerning
Respondent's alleged work-related injuries.
DHHS Ex. 10: Certification of Salary Overpayment dated May
11, 1992 for an alleged overpayment occurring in August 1989.
DHHS Ex. 11: "Indebtedness Payment Agreement Election Form"
filed by Respondent in response to the May 11, 1992 Certification
of the August 1989 overpayment.
DHHS Ex. 12: Documents that DHHS represents were filed by
Respondent in response to the May 11, 1992 of the August 1989
overpayment.
DHHS Ex. 13: Letter of November 22, 1993 from OWCP
concerning a hearing on Respondent's workers' compensation claims.
R. Ex. 1: Respondent's letter of August 18, 1993 appealing
August 2, 1993 Certification of Salary Overpayment to the Assistant
Director for the Personnel and Pay Systems Division.
R. Ex. 2: Respondent's letter concerning where she sent
her request for a hearing on the August 2, 1993 Certification of
Salary Overpayment.
R. Ex. 3: "Hearing Request Form" requesting a hearing, payment
below the minimum payment schedule, and waiver on the August 2,
1993 Certification of Salary Overpayment.
R. Ex. 4: Documents that Respondent represents she filed in
response to the May 11, 1992 Certification of Salary Overpayment.
R. Ex. 5: Composite exhibit containing documents concerning
Respondent's alleged work-related illness and claims for workers'
compensation.
R. Ex. 6: Respondent's statement of income and expenses.
ALJ Ex. 1: Audio recording of a prehearing conference call
conducted June 13, 1994.
1. Exhibits will be cited as follows:
DHHS Exhibit DHHS Ex. (exhibit number/page)
Respondent Exhibit R. Ex. (exhibit number/page)
Tape of Prehearing
Conference dated
June 13, 1994
conducted by
Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) ALJ Ex. 1
The exhibits are listed and described in the Appendix.
2. The Secretary's authority for waiving erroneous payments of
pay has been delegated to the Associate General Counsel, Business
and Administrative Law Division, Office of General Counsel. DHHS
Personnel Manual 550-8-70. This authority has been redelegated to
the SSA Claims Officers and to the Chief Counsels in the Regional
Offices. The Chief, Administrative Law Branch considers requests
for reconsideration when the Regional Chief Counsels or the SSA
Claims Officers deny a request for waiver.