BRB No. 89-2710 BLA 
                         

CORNELIUS HURLEY              )                        
                              )
          Claimant-Respondent )
                              )
     v.                       )
                              )
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'  )    DATE ISSUED:06/24/1991 
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED )
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR    )
                              )
          Petitioner          )    DECISION and ORDER

     Appeal of the Certification of Transcript and Denial of Relief Requested on
     Motion for Reconsideration of George A. Fath, Administrative Law Judge,
     United States Department of Labor.
     
     Richard Zorn (Robert P. Davis, Solicitor of Labor; Donald S. Shire, Associate
     Solicitor; Rae Ellen Frank James, Deputy Associate Solicitor; Richard A. Seid
     and Michael J. Rutledge, Counsel for Administrative Litigation and Legal
     Advice), Washington, D.C., for the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation
     Programs, the United States Department of Labor.

     Before:  STAGE, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, DOLDER, Administrative
     Appeals Judge, and LAWRENCE, Administrative Law Judge.*

     PER CURIAM:
     The Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (the Director), appeals
the Certification of Transcript and Denial of Relief Requested on Motion for
Reconsideration (86-BLA-0569) of Administrative Law Judge George A. Fath declining
to adjudicate the issue of whether waiver of recovery of overpayment of interim
*Sitting as a temporary Board member by designation pursuant to the Longshore and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act as amended in 1984, 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(5)
(Supp. V 1987).
benefits was appropriate on a claim filed pursuant to the provisions of Title IV
of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended, 30 U.S.C.
§901 et seq. (the Act).  The administrative law
judge found that an overpayment had been made to claimant in the amount of
$28,643.50, but that he did not have subject matter jurisdiction to issue a binding
Decision and Order either granting or denying waiver of recovery of overpayment of
interim benefits.  Accordingly, the administrative law judge did not adjudicate
this issue, but rather issued a Certification of Transcript, which summarized the
evidence ascertained at the formal hearing and from the record herein.  The
administrative law judge further denied the relief requested on the Director's
Motion for Reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction.  On appeal, the Director
asserts that the administrative law judge has proper jurisdiction, and asks that
the case be remanded to the Office of Administrative Law Judges for a Decision and
Order on the issue of whether waiver of recovery of the overpayment is proper. 
Claimant has not participated in this appeal.[1] 
     The Board's scope of review is defined by statute.  If the administrative law
judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by substantial
evidence, are rational, and are consistent with applicable law, they are binding
upon this Board and may not be disturbed.  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).
     Subsequent to the administrative law judge's Certification of Transcript and
Denial of Relief Requested on Motion for Reconsideration, the Benefits Review Board
decided Jones v. Director, OWCP, 14 BLR 1-80 (1990)(en
banc)(Brown, J., concurring), which held that the Office of
Administrative Law Judges and the Board have jurisdiction of overpayment issues
arising pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §410.560 et seq. 
The Board further held that the Federal Claims Collection Act's $20,000 ceiling on
agency discretion with respect to the compromise and collection of claims does not
affect the jurisdiction of the administrative law judge or the Benefits Review
Board to determine whether recovery of overpayment should be waived. 
Jones, supra; see also
Knope v. Director, OWCP,     BLR    , BRB No. 88-3314 BLA (Dec. 27,
1990).  See Section 204 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§404, which is made applicable to the Act by 30 U.S.C. §§923(b),
940; 33 U.S.C. §919.  Consequently, we vacate the administrative law judge's
finding that he does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and we remand this case
for the administrative law judge to determine whether waiver of recovery of
overpayment of interim benefits is appropriate pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §410.561a
et seq.  See Knope,
supra; Nelson v. Director, OWCP, 14 BLR 1-159 (1990);
Weis v. Director, OWCP,    BLR    , BRB No. 88-2827 BLA (Nov. 28,
1990); Potisek v. Director, OWCP, 14 BLR 1-87 (1990)(en
banc)(Brown, J., dissenting).
     Accordingly, the administrative law judge's Certification of Transcript and
Denial of Relief Requested on Motion for Reconsideration are vacated, and this case
is remanded to the administrative law judge for further consideration consistent
with this opinion.
     SO ORDERED.

                                                 
                    BETTY J. STAGE, Chief
                    Administrative Appeals Judge



                                                 
                    NANCY S. DOLDER
                    Administrative Appeals Judge



                                                 
                    LEONARD N. LAWRENCE
                    Administrative Law Judge



To Top of Document

Footnotes.
 1) The Director additionally requests that the Board remand this
case to the administrative law judge for a full hearing on the merits.  A review
of the record, however, indicates that the administrative law judge conducted a
full hearing on January 5, 1988.
 Back to Text

To Top of Document