Edwards v. United States

• Decision Date: 29 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-cv-2560 (KBJ),18-cv-2560 (KBJ)
• Parties: SONDRA EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

SONDRA EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

No. 18-cv-2560 (KBJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

May 29, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se plaintiff Sondra Edwards is a former United States Postal Service employee and veteran who, since 1991, has received benefits from both the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"), for a service-connected disability, and the Department of Labor ("Labor"), for an on-the-job injury pursuant to the Federal Employees' Compensation Act ("FECA"). (See generally Am. Compl. ("Compl."), ECF No. 6; see also Notice of Proposed Rescission Decision, Attach. C to Gov't Ex. 1 of Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 8-4, at 21.)¹ In 2012, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs ("OWCP")—a sub-agency that the Secretary of Labor has designated to manage claims for benefits under the FECA—determined that Edwards was improperly receiving dual benefits from both the VA and Labor for the same condition and terminated Edwards's FECA benefits. (See Compl. ¶ 4.) Edwards then spent years disputing that termination through the administrative appeals process, which resulted in the reinstatement of her FECA benefits. (See id. ¶ 5.) In the instant lawsuit, Edwardsseeks money damages for OWCP's decision to terminate her FECA benefits in the first place; she alleges that this erroneous determination defamed her, constituted intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). (See id. ¶ 1.)

Before this Court at present is the Government's motion to dismiss, which argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction with respect to Edwards's tort claims (see Gov't Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss ("Gov't Mem."), ECF No. 8-3, at 8-14), and that Edwards has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the ADA (see id. at 15-16). As explained herein, the Court agrees with the Government's argument that it does not have jurisdiction over Edwards's tort claims, and it finds that this limitation on the Court's authority is for good reason. The FECA statute expressly precludes judicial review of OWCP's actions in denying a payment under the statute, but it provides an administrative appeals process, of which Edwards has already availed herself. And because that process has led to the termination decision being rescinded and the wrongfully withheld benefits being restored, the money damages that Edwards now claims as a result of the allegedly tortious termination of her FECA benefits have, in essence, already been provided. Therefore, this Court lacks power to order anything more, and the Government's motion to dismiss the claims in Edwards's complaint will be GRANTED. A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will follow.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background²

Pro se Plaintiff Sondra Edwards worked for the United States Postal Service until 1990, and prior to that, she served in the United States Air Force. (See Compl. ¶ 18; Notice of Occupational Disease and Claim for Compensation, Attach. A to Gov't Ex. 1, at 15; Oct. 6, 2017, Letter from Adam Calendrillo, Attach. W to Gov't Ex. 1, at 155.) Due to a disability that resulted from her military service, Edwards has received benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") since at least 1989. (See Notice of Occupational Disease and Claim for Compensation, Attach. A to Gov't Ex. 1, at 16.) In 1990, while working for the Postal Service, Edwards suffered an additional injury caused by the alleged harassment of her supervisors, and she submitted a claim to Labor for compensation under the FECA. (See id. at 14.) In 1991, Labor accepted Edwards's FECA claim in relation to "the condition major depressive episode." (Feb. 6, 1991, Letter from Heidi Lempert, Attach. B to Gov't Ex. 1, at 18.)

Approximately twenty years later, in 2011, OWCP changed Edwards's medical condition from "Major Depressive Disorder" to "Aggravation of Major Depressive Disorder" in its records. (See Notice of Decision, Attach. D to Gov't Ex. 1, at 27.) OWCP sent Edwards a letter notifying her of the change, and she alleges that, alongwith this correspondence, the agency included a letter addressed to another veteran, along with his private medical information. (See Compl. ¶ 1; Apr. 10, 2017, Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death, Attach. A to Gov't Ex. 2 to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 8-5, at 7.) Edwards forwarded the information to the other veteran, after which she received a call from an OWCP employee who allegedly screamed at her because she had exposed the agency's violation of the Health Information Protection Privacy Act ("HIPPA"). (See Compl. ¶ 1.) According to Edwards, OWCP then began to retaliate against her (see Compl. ¶ 6; Pl.'s Opp'n, ECF No. 10, at 8), and to this end, on May 19, 2011, OWCP briefly terminated the payment of Edwards's FECA benefits (see June 18, 2020, Letter, Ex. 1 to Pl.'s Response, ECF No. 12-1, at 35).³

In the months that followed, OWCP began to investigate whether Edwards was impermissibly receiving dual benefits for her condition from both OWCP and the VA. (See Compl. ¶ 2; see also Nov. 14, 2011, Letter from Darryl K. Parker, Attach. E to Gov't Ex. 1, at 31.) In 2012, OWCP informed Edwards that the agency had determined that she was receiving dual benefits from both agencies, and that dual benefits are prohibited by FECA. (See Jan. 17, 2011, Letter from Darryl K. Parker, Attach. F to Gov't Ex. 1, at 39 (explaining that dual benefits exist where an "injury sustained while in Federal civilian employment" results in both "[a]n increase in a veteran's service connected disability" and "workers' compensation wage-loss benefits"); see also Compl. ¶ 3.) And when Edwards failed to respond by electing to receive either the VA benefits or the FECA benefits, by default, Edwards's FECA benefits were terminated.(See May 17, 2012, Letter from Darryl K. Parker, Attach. G to Gov't Ex. 1, at 46; see also Compl. ¶ 3.) Edwards timely requested reconsideration of this termination decision, but OWCP found that the evidence Edwards provided was unpersuasive. (See Aug. 10, 2012, Letter from Alida V. Anderson, Attach. K to Gov't Ex. 1, at 80-83.)

In September of 2012, OWCP informed Edwards that the agency had made a preliminary determination that she had been "overpaid benefits in the amount of $440,345.92" and provided instructions for her to dispute that overpayment amount. (Sept. 25, 2012, Letter from Helen Ferro, Attach. H to Gov't Ex. 1, at 52; see also Compl. ¶ 4.) Edwards failed to dispute that determination, and OWCP finalized its overpayment determination in November of 2012. (See Nov. 13, 2012, Letter from Helen Ferro, Attach. I to Gov't Ex. 1, at 66-67.) And given Edwards's failure to take steps to refute or repay the purported overpayment, OWCP considered the debt delinquent and, in May of 2013, referred the overpayment amount to Treasury for collection. (See Debt Referral for Treasury, Ex. 10 to Pl.'s Response, ECF No. 12-1, at 37; see also Attach. J to Gov't Ex. 1, at 73.)

Meanwhile, in early 2013, Edwards participated in a "formal hearing" at the VA regarding the issue of dual benefits. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 4.) According to Edwards, the VA determined that she was not receiving dual benefits (see id. ¶ 4), and based on the VA's determination in this regard, Edwards sought reconsideration of OWCP's termination decision, which OWCP ultimately denied (see June 4, 2013, Letter from Stephanie Fenton, Attach. J to Gov't Ex. 1, at 90-91; see also Compl. ¶ 4). In August of 2013, Edwards appealed OWCP's denial of reconsideration to the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board ("ECAB") (see Feb. 10, 2014, ECAB Decision and Order, Attach. M toGov't Ex. 1, at 93), but because Edwards had failed to challenge directly the merits of OWCP's prior decisions to terminate her FECA benefits and to assess the $440,345.92 overpayment amount, ECAB only had jurisdiction to review the "nonmerit[s] decision" of the agency's denial of Edwards's request for reconsideration. (Id.) ECAB found that OWCP properly denied the request for reconsideration. (See id. at 96.)

Edwards sought reconsideration several more times; appealed one such denial to ECAB again; and then filed a request for reconsideration from ECAB—none of which was availing. (See Mar. 14, 2014, Letter from Christina Steven, Attach. N to Gov't Ex. 1, at 99; Dec. 18, 2015, Letter from Kevin Burke, Attach. Q to Gov't Ex. 1, at 115; Jan. 29, 2016, Letter from Kristina A. Oettel-Barber, Attach. R to Gov't Ex. 1, 125; Feb. 17, 2016, Letter from Tonya Taylor, Attach. S to Gov't Ex. 1, at 128.) Edwards also wrote letters to the Secretary of Labor and other Labor officials asking for help to "correct" the record regarding "[her] diagnosis and [to] remove that bogus debt[.]" (Feb. 9, 2016, Letter from Sondra Edwards, Attach. T to Gov't Ex. 1, at 133; see also July 19, 2016, Letter from Sondra Edwards, Attach. U to Gov't Ex. 1, at 138; Aug. 6, 2016, Letter from Sondra Edwards, Attach. V to Gov't Ex. 1, at 142; Compl. ¶ 11.) Each letter was forwarded to OWCP, and the agency repeatedly sent letters to Edwards in response. (See Feb. 19, 2016, Letter from Christel Porter-Keefer, Attach. T to Gov't Ex. 1, at 135; Aug. 15, 2016, Letter from Tisha Carter, Attach. U to Gov't Ex. 1, at 139; Aug. 17, 2016, Letter from Tisha Carter, Attach. V to Gov't Ex. 1, at 146.) Edwards also alleges that the Secretary engaged in intimidation tactics to cause her to "be quiet, and not seek help." (Compl. ¶ 11.)

Edwards further maintains that OWCP's erroneous dual-benefits decision, termination of her FECA benefits, and referral of the mistaken overpayment debt to Treasury harmed her in a variety of ways, including causing her to suffer homelessness (see id. ¶ 5); to endure a robbery at gunpoint (see id. ¶ 6); to encounter bed bugs (see id. ¶ 9); to sustain fractured family relationships and issues with life insurance/credit (see i...