Grimes v. USDOL, 2000-DCA-1 (ALJ Oct. 2, 2001)

May 9, 2009

DOL Home > OALJ Home > Miscellaneous Collection

USDOL/OALJ Reporter

Grimes v. USDOL, 2000-DCA-1 (ALJ Oct. 2, 2001)

U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges
Heritage Plaza Bldg. - Suite 530
111 Veterans Memorial Blvd
Metairie, LA 70005
(504) 589-6201
(504) 589-6268 (FAX)
DOL Seal

Issue date: 02Oct2001

CASE NO.: 2000-DCA-1

IN THE MATTER OF

ZENO G. GRIMES,
Petitioner

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR,
Respondent

ORDER SETTING DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE

This case arises under Section 5 of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (DCA), 5 U.S.C.§ 5514 and the implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 20.74 et. seq. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 20.81, Zeno G. Grimes (Petitioner) sought a hearing before an administrative law judge to contest the appropriateness of salary offset to collect an alleged overpayment of workers' compensation payments. In an attempt to narrow the issues and achieve a settlement of this case, both Judge Richard J. Mills and myself have conducted joint telephone calls with the parties. These attempts have helped to narrow the issues to one, i.e., the amount of deductions through salary offset which Respondent has deducted from Petitioner's salary.¹

Petitioner contends that $7,270.11 has been involuntarily deducted by salary offset from an indebtedness of $9,368.64 due to an overpayment of workers' compensation benefits leaving a balance of only $ 2,098.53 due. Respondent, through its counsel, Catherine P. Carter, contends that a total of $5, 242.73 has been deducted from Petitioner's salary leaving a balance due of $4,125.91 due.²

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 20.81, I shall allow the parties until October 19, 2001 to submit written statements under oath with appropriate documentation, to establish their respective positions. Written statements and supporting documentation should be received in my office, no later than the close of business, 4:30 p.m., Friday October 19, 2001.

[Page 2]

Once the appropriate documents are received, I will then issue a decision in this matter in as much as 29 C.F.R. § 20.81(c) provides for a hearing based on written submissions unless one of the following circumstances is present:

(1) An applicable statute authorizes or requires the agency to consider waiver of the indebtedness involved, the debtor requests waiver or the indebtedness, and the waiver of indebtedness turns on an issue of credibility or veracity; or
(2) An individual debtor requests reconsideration of the debt and the administrative law judge determines that the question of the indebtedness cannot resolved by review of the documentary evidence, for example, when the validity of the debt turns on an issue of credibility or veracity; or
(3) In other situations in which the administrative law judge deems an oral hearing appropriate.

Since none of subsections of 29 C.F.R.§ 20.81(c) apply, I find it is appropriate to rely upon written submissions.

CLEMENT J. KENNINGTON
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

[ENDNOTES]

¹ A transcript was made of the final joint telephone call of September 6, 2001 between the parties. Subsequent attempts to read Petitioner by phone have proven unsuccessful.

² Although Petitioner requested a hearing on December 20 ,1999, salary deductions continued (apparently inadvertently), to be made by Respondent into 2001 until Respondent's counsel advised the U.S. Postal Service to cease the deductions while the case is still pending before the Office of Administrative Law Judges.