{"id":5906,"date":"2013-03-10T19:27:23","date_gmt":"2013-03-11T00:27:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/?p=5906"},"modified":"2013-03-10T19:28:22","modified_gmt":"2013-03-11T00:28:22","slug":"oig-special-agents-do-not-have-special-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/2013\/03\/10\/oig-special-agents-do-not-have-special-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"OIG \u2018Special Agents\u2019 Don\u2019t Have Special Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Taken from the March\/April 2013 edition of The American Postal Worker<\/em><\/p>\n

In a recent decision, the Employees Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) ruled that the Office of Workers\u2019 Compensation Programs (OWCP) acted improperly when it terminated the benefits of an injured worker based on evidence that was impermissibly obtained (F.S., Appellant; Docket 11-863; Issued 9\/26\/2012).<\/p>\n

The ECAB concluded that special agents of the USPS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) violated several federal regulations in a fraud investigation involving the claimant \u2014 an all-too-common practice. In its ruling, ECAB admonished OWCP for departing from its obligations, stating vehemently that evidence created outside applicable regulations should be rejected.<\/p>\n

According to the record, OIG Postal Service agents made several trips to the appellant\u2019s doctors. Such actions blatantly violate Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) regulations, which explicitly forbid employing agencies from making contact with treating physicians by phone or by direct personal visits.<\/p>\n

According to the ECAB, the visiting agents influenced and prejudiced the doctors\u2019 perception of the patient by persuasively detailing the investigation and showing skewed evidence in \u201can obvious effort to procure an opinion favorable to their position.\u201d The agents provided an edited version of surveillance video without the claimant\u2019s knowledge and without explaining how the evidence had been edited.<\/p>\n

The ECAB has long disapproved of the use of covert tactics. Nearly 60 years ago, in the case of Fredrick Nightingale, the ECAB cautioned:<\/p>\n

\u201cAppellant should have been apprised of the conflicts and inconsistencies and the general nature of adverse evidence developed, in order that he might know the nature of the issues to be met and have an opportunity to present such rebuttal or explanation as was available. This in the Board\u2019s view is vital in the non-adversary proceedings under the Federal Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, as it is the function of the Bureau to adjudicate the rights of claimants in light of all relevant facts, facts which can only be developed fully when the claimant is fairly advised as to the nature of the evidence from other sources which bears on his claim\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

More recently, the ECAB addressed the issue of surveillance and imposed on the OWCP an obligation to disclose the existence of videotaped evidence to the employee before it is shown to a doctor; provide a copy to the claimant if requested, and allow the employee reasonable time to explain the events captured on tape. In its ruling, the ECAB reasoned that video evidence may be \u201cincorrect or misleading,\u201d noting possible identity errors and an inability to decipher \u201cwhether certain activities were facilitated by the use of medication\u201d [J.M., 58 ECAB 478, 486 (2007)].<\/p>\n

Adding to the list of agent indiscretions in the current case, ECAB judges found that OIG law enforcement officers \u201cclearly took an active and on some issues decisive role in developing the appellant\u2019s claim and building the case to terminate benefits.\u201d Agents asked the doctor to sign an \u201cofficial statement\u201d drafted by a USPS special agent; complete under oath a Postal Service questionnaire, and fill out a Department of Labor \u201cDuty Status Report\u201d indicating the appellant was able to return to regular work, full-time, without any medical restrictions. It its decision, the board noted the possibility that the doctor was motivated by fear of being \u201cdragged into the \u2018fraud investigation\u2019\u201d and pointed out that the OIG threatens to criminally prosecute anyone who released details or reports associated with their clandestine investigation.<\/p>\n

In this case, the administrative claims process was impermissibly mingled with the investigative process, the board concluded. Before modifying or terminating compensation or authorization for medical treatment, OWCP has a burden to establish through \u201crationalized\u201d medical evidence that the disability has ceased or is no longer related to employment.<\/p>\n

by Sue Carney, Director
\nAPWU Human Relations Dept.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Taken from the March\/April 2013 edition of The American Postal Worker In a recent decision, the Employees Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) ruled that the Office of Workers\u2019 Compensation Programs (OWCP) acted improperly when it terminated the benefits of an injured worker based on evidence that was impermissibly obtained (F.S., Appellant; Docket 11-863; Issued 9\/26\/2012). The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-apwu-news","last_archivepost"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5906","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5906"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5906\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5910,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5906\/revisions\/5910"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}