United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of S.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Stanhope, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1516

Issued: July 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $990.00.

1

 The Board notes 

that all petitions for approval of fees for representative’s services are considered under the Board’s 

statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act,2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

1 FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)) and its implementing regulation (20 C.F.R. § 501.9) clearly require the Board to 

review each fee petition on its own merits and with regard to the unique facts and issues of each appeal. The 

recognition that each appeal to the Board has unique aspects is reflected in the Board’s orders granting or denying fee 

petitions.

2

Id. at § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).
2

Pursuant to its regulation, the Board considered the fee petition under the following criteria:

(1) The usefulness of the Representative’s services;4

(2) The nature and complexity of the appeal;5

(3) The capacity in which the Representative has appeared;6

(4) The actual time spent in connection with the Board appeal;7 and

(5) Customary local charges for similar services.8

As required by the Board’s regulations, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition.9 No response was 

received.

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the above-referenced 

appeal. By decision dated July 18, 2018, OWCP finalized a proposed termination of appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, finding that the residuals of her accepted workrelated medical condition(s) and disability from work as a result of her December 27, 2012 

traumatic injury had ceased. By decision dated January 30, 2019, a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review affirmed the July 18, 2018 decision. 

On July 8, 2019 counsel filed an appeal with the Board from OWCP’s January 30, 2019 

decision. By decision dated May 14, 2021, the Board found that OWCP did not meet its burden 

of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits. On October 21, 

2021 the Board issued a corrected decision finding that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits for the accepted conditions of cervical 

sprain, thoracic sprain, lumbar sprain,and cervical radiculopathy, while further finding that OWCP 

4 The Board’s consideration of “usefulness” includes, but is not limited to, the frequency and quality of 

communication by the representative with the client, the factual evidence and legal argument offered, and written 

pleadings filed in the case. The Board will also consider the usefulness of a representative’s work as it aided the Board 

in its consideration and decision of the issue appealed.

5 The Board’s evaluation of the “nature and complexity” of an appeal includes, but is not limited to, whether the 

issue appealed is novel or required extensive or unusual factual evidence or legal argument. The Board recognizes 

that not all complex issues are cases of first impression. However, the representative must establish the complex or 

unusual nature of the appeal.

6 The Board’s consideration of the “capacity” in which a representative appears includes, but is not limited to, 

whether the representative obtained a written retainer and fee agreement.

7 The Board’s evaluation of an itemized statement of work and charges includes, but is not limited to, whether the 

statement is clear, detailed, and describes those aspects of the appeal which merit the fee claimed and whether the 

representative has personally affirmed the correctness of the fee. No stipulated or contingent fee will be approved by 

the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

8 The Board’s consideration of customary, local fees recognizes that representatives often have clients in several 

states and that local custom must be balanced against national practice in the FECA appeals.

9

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 
3

did not meet its burden of proof to terminate wage-loss compensation and medical benefits for the 

accepted condition of post-concussion syndrome.

On November 29, 2021 counsel provided a fee petition and a statement of services 

requesting approval of fees totaling $990.00 from July 1, 2020 through October 28, 2021. The fee 

petition described the specific services provided for the amount claimed.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated January 30, 2019 and the appeal was filed with the 

Board on July 8, 2019. The fee petition requests approval of time from July 1, 2020 through 

October 28, 2021 and documents 2.2 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the Board 

at $450.00 per hour. The fee petition described the specific services provided for the amount 

claimed.

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds that it satisfies the requirements of 

section 501.9(e) of the Board’s implementing regulations. The Board concludes that the fee 

requested is reasonable.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition is granted in the amount of $990.00.

Issued: July 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board