Search:

Custom Search
Photo of Susan Smith

Divorce, Health Insurance and a Retired Federal Employee

By Susan Smith

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

You can have daily headlines from FedSmith.com delivered right to your desktop each business morning. The service is free and you don't get junk e-mail as the price of your subscription. Just visit our newsletter page to sign up!

Susan McGuire Smith spent most of her 26-year federal government career with NASA, first at NASA Headquarters Office of General Counsel and then at Marshall Space Flight Center, serving as Chief Counsel there for more than 14 years. Her expertise is in government contracts, ethics, and personnel law. Ms. Smith has a J.D and a B.A. degree from the George Washington University. Her publications include Practical Ethics for the Federal Employee.

A divorced spouse of a retired federal employee has been frustrated in her attempts to continue her coverage under his federal health insurance policy even though she had a court order requiring her ex-husband to "continue to pay…the premiums due on the medical" policy. (Richardson v. Office of Personnel Management, C.A.F.C. No. 2009-3159 (nonprecedential), 10/6/09)
 
In spite of this language in the divorce decree, Mr. Richardson later removed his ex-wife from his federal health insurance. Vinnie Richardson (the ex-wife) then wrote to the Office of Personnel Management and requested that her health insurance be reinstated.
 
No can do, said OPM. The agency concluded it had no authority to enforce a court order that directed a federal retiree to keep his spouse covered under his Federal Employees Health Benefits policy. (Opinion, pp. 1-2)
 
Vinnie Richardson appealed OPM's decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB affirmed OPM's decision, so Ms. Richardson took her case to the appeals court (representing herself, i.e. "pro se.") Once more, however, she is out of luck.
 
The appeals court agrees that the MSPB has no jurisdiction to add Ms. Richardson to her ex-husband's FEHB policy. The court explains to Ms. Richardson that claims under the FEHBP are within the jurisdiction of the district courts and the Court of Federal Claims, and not with the MSPB. Therefore, the Board was correct to dismiss her request for coverage under the health insurance policy. (p. 5)
 
Ms. Richardson also had requested that OPM and the court affirm that she is entitled to a survivor annuity. The court pointed out that the state court decree had made no reference to Ms. Richardson getting a survivor annuity under her ex-husband's pension. Further, the court noted, "…as there is no evidence that Mr. Richardson has died, [her]…claim to all or a portion of a survivor annuity is premature." (p. 6)
 
Apparently Ms. Richardson is concerned that she will be cut out of the survivor annuity that her husband elected for her benefit when he retired several years prior to their divorce, given what happened with her health insurance. (pp. 1-2) However, she picked the wrong time and probably the wrong place to bring that concern forward.
 
Navigating the waters of a divorce involving a federal employee or retiree spouse is not that simple, as this case and many others like it demonstrate.

© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent of FedSmith Inc.

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.

Readers' Comments

  • Since the Obama Administration wants everybody to think that they are so concerned about universal healthcare, shouldn"t this be one he could take a special interest and prove that? America has been hoodwinked again. It's the "hr no specialist" who is running our governement. Whoever you are, y...
    Posted: November 10, 2009 8:57 AM
  • Or at least she should pay half of the insurance premium. The asset is not her husband paying the premium. It is the government paying 72% of the premium making health insurance affordable. Why should the spouse have to continue paying his former spouse's share in the future?...
    Posted: November 3, 2009 2:10 PM
  • I'm just wondering why the spouse shouldn't pay her portion of the health care premium while being carried on her spouse's plan. This sounds like a much more equitable arrangement in today's world....
    Posted: November 3, 2009 2:03 PM

View All Comments »

MORE BY SUSAN SMITH

Contact Susan Smith or read more articles on the author's page.