Fite Rose v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
| Decision Date | 23 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | BRB 17-0421 BLO |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Black Lung Complaints |
| Parties | CLARIS I. FITE ROSE Claimant-Petitioner v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Respondent |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal of the Decision and Order Denying Request for Waiver of Theresa C. Timlin, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.
Claris I. Fite Rose, Fanrock, West Virginia.
Jeffrey S. Goldberg (Kate S. O'Scannlain, Solicitor of Labor; Maia S. Fisher, Associate Solicitor; Michael J Rutledge, Counsel for Administrative Litigation and Legal Advice), Washington, D.C., for the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor.
Before: HALL, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge. GILLIGAN and ROLFE, Administrative Appeals Judges.
DECISION AND ORDER
Claimant[1] appeals, without the assistance of counsel, the Decision and Order Denying Request for Waiver (2013-BLO-00011) of Administrative Law Judge Theresa C. Timlin, issued with respect to the overpayment of benefits in a survivor's claim filed pursuant to the provisions of the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§901-944 (2012) (the Act).[2]
The administrative law judge found that an overpayment in the amount of $20, 962.80 occurred because claimant received interim benefits following an initial award by the district director, but was subsequently found not to be entitled to benefits.[3]See Decision and Order at 1-2; Director's Exhibit 1. Based on the concession of the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (the Director), the administrative law judge found that claimant was without fault in the creation of the overpayment. The administrative law judge determined that claimant failed to establish that recovery of the overpayment would defeat the purpose of the Act or be against equity and good conscience, however, based on the financial information provided by claimant. Thus, the administrative law judge denied claimant's request for waiver of recovery of the overpayment and ordered claimant to reimburse the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund $20, 962.80.
On appeal, claimant generally challenges the administrative law judge's denial of waiver of recovery of the overpayment. The Director responds, requesting the Board to affirm the administrative law judge's findings that recovery of the overpayment would neither defeat the purpose of the Act nor be against equity and good conscience.
In an appeal filed by a claimant without the assistance of counsel, the Board considers the issue raised to be whether the Decision and Order below is supported by substantial evidence. McFall v. Jewell Ridge Coal Co., 12 BLR 1-176, 1-177 (1989); Stark v. Director, OWCP, 9 BLR 1-36, 1-37 (1986). We must affirm the administrative law judge's Decision and Order if the findings of fact and conclusions of law are rational, supported by substantial evidence, and in accordance with applicable law.[4] 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(3), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. §932(a); O'Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965).
Where a claimant is without fault in the creation of an overpayment, she may obtain waiver of recovery by demonstrating that it would either defeat the purpose of the Act or would be against equity and good conscience. 20 C.F.R. §725.542; see Jarvis v. Carbon Fuel Company, 23 F.3d 401 (Table), 1994 WL 179473 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 1994) (unpub); Ashe v. Director, OWCP, 16 BLR 1-109, 1-111 (1992). Recovery defeats the purpose of the Act if it deprives claimant of income required for ordinary and necessary living expenses.[5] See 20 C.F.R. §725.543, incorporating 20 C.F.R. §§404.506-404.512; Keiffer v. Director, OWCP, 18 BLR 1-35, 1-39 (1993). Recovery is against equity and good conscience if claimant changed her position for the worse or relinquished a valuable right in reliance upon receipt of the overpaid benefits. 20 C.F.R. §404.509(a)(1); Keiffer, 18 BLR at 1-39.
Here, the administrative law judge noted that there was no dispute by the parties regarding the amount of the overpayment. Decision and Order at 6 n.5. She further found, based on the Director's concession, that claimant was without fault in the creation of the overpayment. Id. at 3 n.2. In determining that claimant is not entitled to waiver of recovery of the overpayment, the administrative law judge considered the relevant evidence regarding claimant's monthly income and estimated monthly expenses, as demonstrated in the 2014 receipts provided by claimant after her formal hearing.[6]Decision and Order at 2; Claimant's Exhibit 1. The administrative law judge found that claimant had a monthly income of $2, 431.00, consisting of $1, 777.00 from the Social Security Administration and $654.00 from a United Mine Workers' Association pension. Decision and Order at 4; Claimant's Exhibit 1. In addition, the administrative law judge found that claimant had approximately $4, 000.00 in cash assets, including a bank account in the amount of $3, 978.00, evidenced by an August 2014 bank statement, and $50.00 cash on hand. Id. "[G]iving Claimant every favorable legal and factual inference, " the administrative law judge determined that claimant has maximum monthly expenses of $2, 045.00.[7] Decision and Order at 4-6; Claimant's Exhibit 1. Thus, the administrative law judge found that claimant had approximately $400.00 in excess monthly income and approximately $4, 000.00 in financial assets. Id. Because recovery of the overpayment would not deprive claimant of funds needed to meet her ordinary and necessary living expenses, the administrative law judge concluded that it would not defeat the purpose of the Act. Id.
Finding further that claimant "makes no argument that she changed her financial position for the worse or relinquished a valuable right" in reliance upon the overpayment, the administrative law judge concluded that recovery of the overpayment would not be against equity or good conscience. Decision and Order at 6. She therefore denied claimant's request for waiver.
We affirm the administrative law judge's conclusion that claimant is not entitled to waiver of the overpayment as supported by substantial evidence. The administrative law judge permissibly found that overpayment "would not deprive [c]laimant of funds needed to meet her ordinary and necessary living expenses" in light of claimant's monthly surplus of approximately $400.00 in income. Decision and Order at 6; see 20 C.F.R. §§404.508, 725.542, 725.543; Benedict v. Director, OWCP, 29 F.3d 1140, 1144, 18 BLR 2-309, 2-310-11 (7th Cir. 1994); Napier v. Director, OWCP, 999 F.2d 1032, 1036, 17 BLR 2-186, 2-192-93 (6th Cir. 1993).
We also affirm the administrative law judge's finding that claimant failed to prove that recovery of the overpayment would be against equity and good conscience, as claimant did not provide any evidence or argument to establish that she changed her position for the worse or that she relinquished a valuable right as a result of her receipt of interim benefits payments. 20 C.F.R. §§404.590(b), 725.542, 725.543; see Jarvis, 23 F.3d at 401, 1994 WL at 179473; Keiffer, 18 BLR at 1-39. Therefore, based on the administrative law judge's reasonable findings, we affirm her determination that claimant failed to prove that she is entitled to a waiver of recovery of the overpayment pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §725.542.[8]
Accordingly, the administrative law judge's Decision and Order Denying Request for Waiver is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
BETTY JEAN HALL, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, RYAN GILLIGAN Administrative Appeals Judge, JONATHAN ROLFE Administrative Appeals Judge.
---------
Notes:
[1] Claimant is the widow of the miner Daniel C. Fite, who died on May 23, 2003. See Director's Exhibit 1.
[2] At claimant's request, a hearing was held on June 18, 2014 before Administrative Law Judge Theresa C. Timlin (the administrative law judge). Claimant appeared without the assistance of counsel, and agreed to proceed unrepresented. Hearing Tr. at 4. Because claimant did not bring any financial documentation that would establish her income and expenses, however, the hearing was continued and the administrative law judge afforded claimant the opportunity to submit documentation, post-hearing. Id. at 5-6. The parties agreed that they would attempt to reach a settlement, and if they were unable to do so, claimant's documentation would be sent to the administrative law judge who would make a decision on the record. Id. The parties did not reach a settlement, and the administrative law judge issued her decision on the record, as agreed. Decision and Order at 2.
[3] Claimant filed her survivor's claim on July...
To continue reading
Request your trial