TITLE: B-309267, Relief of Accountable Officer at Veterans Affairs Medical Center, January 15, 2008
BNUMBER: B-309267
DATE: January 15, 2008
********************************************************************************************
B-309267, Relief of Accountable Officer at Veterans Affairs Medical Center, January 15, 2008

   B-309267

   January 15, 2008

   Mr. Edward J. Murray
   Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance
   Department of Veterans Affairs
   Washington, D.C. 20420

   Subject: Relief of Accountable Officer at Veterans Affairs Medical Center

   Dear Mr. Murray:

   This responds to your request of March 26, 2007, that we relieve Joan C.
   Jackson, former principal cashier at the Washington, D.C., Veterans
   Affairs Medical Center, for physical losses that occurred in February and
   March 2001 and January 2003. Letter from Edward J. Murray, Deputy
   Assistant Secretary for Finance, Department of Veterans Affairs, to Gary
   L. Kepplinger, General Counsel, GAO, Mar. 26, 2007. At issue here are two
   losses--one of $3,280 that occurred in 2001 and a second of $123 that
   occurred in 2003. For the reasons stated below, we deny relief for the
   loss of $3,280 in patient funds receipts from 2001. In 1991, GAO delegated
   to agencies the authority to resolve losses of less than $3,000. B-243749,
   Oct. 22, 1991. Thus, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may resolve
   administratively the loss of $123 in patient funds receipts from 2003 in a
   manner consistent with this decision and our prior decisions.

   BACKGROUND

   Joan Jackson was employed as a principal cashier at the Veterans Affairs
   Medical Center in Washington, D.C. (DC VAMC) during a time period in which
   physical losses were sustained by the patient funds accounts. These
   accounts contain personal funds that patients turned over to the DC VAMC
   to be held for safekeeping during the patients' time at the facility. As
   principal cashier, Ms. Jackson's duties included receiving cash from
   patients and preparing receipts and deposit slips reflecting the amounts
   collected. See VA Handbook 4020, para. 5 (Oct. 17, 1994). Copies of both
   the receipts and the deposit slips are to be given to the patient, to the
   accounting department for entry into the agency's Financial Management
   System (FMS, also called the general ledger), and to the Patient Funds
   Office for entry into the subsidiary records of patient accounts, known as
   VISTA. See Memorandum from David L. King, Chairperson, Board of
   Investigation, Department of Veterans Affairs, to DC VA Medical Center
   Director, Administrative Report of Investigation of Shortage of Funds at
   the Washington DC VAMC, May 2, 2006 (Board of Investigation Report), at
   para. 4(B)(1). The principal cashier must give the cash received and a
   copy of the receipt to a courier for transportation to a bank where it is
   deposited into the U.S. Treasury. See VA Handbook 4020, para. 5. VA policy
   requires that VISTA balances be reconciled with FMS at the end of each
   month. See VA Handbook 4020, para. 19; VA Manual MP-4, pt. V, sect. G.

   A number of unexplained losses of patient funds occurred during February
   and March 2001 and again during January 2003. Ms. Jackson was the
   responsible cashier for the receipts set out below, totaling $3,403, all
   of which were lost. See Memorandum from Sanford M. Garfunkel, Director, DC
   VAMC, to Chief Financial Officer, Veterans Health Administration,
   Determination of Fault or Negligence in Patient Funds Shortages, Sept. 5,
   2006 (VAMC Memo), at paras. 5(a)-(c) and attachments A-C. Each receipt
   represents cash received from a different DC VAMC patient for deposit into
   a patient funds account. These receipts are the subject of this decision.

   Date of Receipt   Amount 
                            
   1.  02/12/2001    700.00 
   2.  02/20/2001    230.00 
   3.  03/06/2001  1,750.00 
   4.  03/30/2001    600.00 
   5.  01/07/2003     53.00 
   6.  01/10/2003     15.00 
   7.  01/17/2003     55.00 

   Source: VAMC Memo, attachments A-C.

   VA has already denied relief to Ms. Jackson for a loss of $2,629, which
   resulted from eight additional missing receipts. See VAMC Memo, at para.
   5(a)(2). The VA found that although Ms. Jackson claimed to have deposited
   those funds on March 1, 2001, the deposit was never made. Id. In addition,
   VA found that the armored car log furnished by Ms. Jackson as proof of
   deposit appeared to have been altered. Id.  Although copies for all of
   these receipts exist, they were apparently not delivered to the accounting
   section, and the amounts were not entered into FMS.

   For the remainder of the patient fund losses, which total $3,403, there
   are copies of each receipt for patient funds signed by Ms. Jackson. See
   VAMC Memo, attachments B and C. However, there is no record of deposit
   slips for any of the funds in question. See VAMC Memo, at paras. 5(b),
   (c). Although these receipts were entered into VISTA, they were apparently
   not entered into FMS. See Board of Investigation Report, at para. 4(A)(1).
   Similarly, there is no record of the funds involved ever being deposited
   in the Treasury. Id. The losses dating from February and March 2001 were
   not discovered until November 2001, during an attempt to reconcile FMS
   with VISTA, and were more fully investigated in December 2002. See VAMC
   Memo,  at attachment B-5. The record indicates that the losses dating from
   January 2003 were investigated in 2005 and 2006 but does not indicate
   specifically how they were discovered.[1] See id. at  para. 5(c).

   GAO'S AUTHORITY TO RELIEVE

   GAO has the authority to relieve accountable officers from liability for
   physical losses when the agency has made a determination that the officer
   was carrying out official duties when the loss occurred and the loss was
   not the result of fault or negligence by the officer. 31 U.S.C. sect.
   3527(a). Although the money involved in this case was patient money and
   not government money, a loss of patient funds from a VA hospital while in
   the custody of the United States is a liability of the government for
   which an accountable officer may be liable. See B-215477, Nov. 5, 1984;
   B-164896-O.M., Aug. 1, 1968.

   GAO has delegated the authority to resolve losses of less than $3,000 to
   the agency in which the loss occurred. B-243749, Oct. 22, 1991. This
   $3,000 limitation applies to single incidents or the total of similar
   incidents which occur about the same time and involve the same accountable
   officer. See id.; GAO, Policies and Procedures Manual for the Guidance of
   Federal Agencies, title 7, sect. 8.9C (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 1993)
   (GAO-PPM). Whether losses constitute a single incident or similar
   incidents depends on the specific factual circumstances of the case at
   hand. For example, in a case where two losses from two different funds
   were attributable to the same theft, we found them to be one loss. See
   B-189795, Sept. 23, 1977. On the other hand, we considered two losses to
   be separate incidents when the first was believed to be a bookkeeping
   error and the second was due to an apparent theft. See B-260862, June 6,
   1995.

   All of the losses forwarded to us for consideration in this case involve
   the same accountable officer. All involve unexplained losses in the
   patient funds account. For each loss, there was a receipt generated, but
   no record of a deposit slip. The losses in 2001 occurred over a relatively
   brief period of time, about seven weeks. In the absence of any evidence to
   the contrary, we find them to be similar incidents. On the other hand, the
   losses from January 2003 cannot be said to have occurred at about the same
   time as those from 2001 and thus may not be combined with the 2001 losses.
   Therefore, we view the lost receipts from February and March of 2001 to be
   similar incidents and consider them as one loss for the purpose of
   deciding this case. Also, we view the three lost receipts from January
   2003 to be similar incidents that should be considered a second loss.
   Since the missing receipts from 2001 total $ 3,280, GAO retains the
   authority to resolve that loss. Because the 2003 lost receipts total only
   $123, the 2003 loss may be resolved administratively by VA, consistent
   with the standards for relief set forth in 31 U.S.C. sect. 3527(a) and in
   relevant guidance from this and previous GAO decisions. See 7 GAO-PPM
   sections 8.9.C, 8.9.A.

   DISCUSSION

   When, as in this case, there is an unexplained loss, a presumption of
   negligence arises on the part of the accountable officer. See B-227714,
   Oct. 20, 1987. The presumption may be rebutted by convincing evidence that
   the loss was not caused by the negligence or lack of reasonable care by
   the accountable officer. See 70 Comp.  Gen. 2 (1990). We found no evidence
   in the record submitted to us that would overcome this presumption. In
   fact, the record suggests that Ms. Jackson indeed was negligent in the
   handling of patient funds, as evidenced by the courier records and failure
   to follow the required procedure of completing deposit tickets and
   forwarding copies of the same to both the Accounting Department and
   Patient Funds Office. See VAMC Memo, at para. 5(a)(2).

   In its initial assessment of the losses attributed to Ms. Jackson, VA
   stated that there was pervasive laxity in the administration of patient
   funds and argued for relief on this basis. On occasion, we have found that
   evidence establishing a pervasive laxity in agency procedures may rebut a
   presumption of negligence. See B-182386, Apr. 24, 1975. It should be
   understood, however, that we will accept pervasive laxity as the possible
   cause of an unexplained loss only when we find that the accountable
   officer was not negligent, or if found to be negligent, the accountable
   officer's negligence was not the proximate cause of the loss. See
   B-271896, Mar. 4, 1997. Thus, where the facts and circumstances
   surrounding a loss indicate pervasive laxity in the supervision and
   management of a cashier's office and neither the acts nor omissions of the
   accountable officer can reasonably be said to have been the proximate
   cause of the loss, we have relieved the accountable officer. Id.  That is
   not the case presented here, however.

   VA cited three specific decisions to support its argument: B-271896, Mar.
   4, 1997; B-229778, Sept. 2, 1988; and B-182386, Apr. 24, 1975. These
   decisions differ significantly from the present case because the evidence
   of laxity in the decisions generally involved the supervision and
   management of a cashier's office. For example, in B-271896, agency
   management allowed other employees access to the cash area, and the
   cashier's safe combination lock was broken for more than a week.
   Similarly, in B-229778, six employees had access to the safe where the
   principal and alternate cashier's cash boxes were kept, and the keys to
   both boxes were kept in a sealed envelope in the safe. In B-182386, the
   combination to the safe had not been changed even though cashiers had
   changed three times over a period of 2 years and both the principal and
   alternate cashiers handled the fund and operated from the same cashbox. In
   the present case, VA has evidence suggesting that Ms. Jackson indeed was
   negligent, and neither Ms. Jackson nor VA has offered any evidence that
   agency management failed to take adequate steps to physically secure the
   funds at the DC VAMC. In fact, the record shows that the principal
   cashier, the co-payment teller[2] and the alternate cashiers had their own
   cash boxes or drawers. No one person had keys to any box but their own,
   even in those cases in which two cash boxes were stored in the same safe.
   There is no evidence that anyone other than Ms. Jackson had access to the
   cash for which she issued signed receipts.

   In addition, in prior decisions we have considered situations in which
   accountable officers have brought their concerns about the security of
   funds to the attention of agency management officials who failed to
   respond. While we have not required accountable officers to do so as a
   condition for granting relief, we have treated such actions as evidence of
   laxity on the part of agency management. Thus, where an accountable
   officer requested that the combination to her safe be changed, we
   considered her supervisor's failure to change the combination evidence of
   pervasive laxity. See B-232744, Dec. 9, 1988. In this case, however, there
   is no evidence that Ms. Jackson brought any security concerns to the
   attention of her superiors.

   Instead of citing examples of physical insecurity, VA has stated that
   pervasive laxity existed due to the failure of the accounting office to
   perform monthly reconciliations between FMS and VISTA. This includes a
   failure to track deposit tickets and receipts. In addition, the accounting
   office repeatedly failed to reconcile deposits and resolve issues with the
   VA-wide finance center located in Austin, Texas, which is supposed to
   perform reconciliations. Although these failures are certainly evidence of
   poor oversight and management, they do not explain the two losses in this
   case, and they did not result in the loss. It is true, as VA asserts, that
   the losses might have been discovered earlier had the proper controls been
   in place. However, the deficiencies in management do not cast doubt on the
   physical security of the cash in question and cannot be considered
   sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of
   Ms. Jackson.

   Accordingly, we deny relief for loss of patient funds receipts from
   February and March 2001, in an amount totaling $ 3,280. VA may resolve the
   $123 loss from March 2003 administratively consistent with this decision
   and our prior discussion.

   Sincerely yours,

   Susan A. Poling
   Managing Associate General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] The record does indicate that in all instances involved, the patients'
   accounts were credited with the deposits. See Board of Investigation
   Report at para. 4(A)(1).

   [2] The main duty of the co-payment teller, who works out of the cashier's
   office, is to collect copayments from patients for medical care they
   received at the VAMC. None of the funds considered in this decision were
   collected as co-payments.