United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of R.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MARINE 

CORPS LOGISTICS, Barstow, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1882

Issued: July 25, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $823.00.1 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 regulations (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

5 U.S.C. § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).
2

Pursuant to these regulations, the Board must consider the petition under the following 

general 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 On June 4, 2018 the 

Clerk of the Board received a signed statement, dated May 22, 2018, in which appellant indicated 

that the requested fee of $823.00 was reasonable and appropriate. Appellant expressed his

understanding that he was responsible for payment of the fee.

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

appeal. By decision dated August 29, 2017, a representative of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs (OWCP) Branch of Hearings and Review denied appellant’s claim for 

continuing wage-loss compensation commencing September 22, 2014, due to his accepted 

emotional conditions. By order dated April 17, 2018, the Board granted the Director of OWCP’s 

March 1, 2018 motion to remand, as the Director agreed that further development was required. 

Therefore, the Board set aside OWCP’s August 29, 2017decision and remanded the case to OWCP 

for further development, including referral of appellant for a second opinion evaluation to 

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 obta ined 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 FECA appeals.

9

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 
3

determine the nature and extent of any partial disability related to the accepted employment injury,

and issuance of an appropriate decision.

On June 4, 2018 counsel filed a fee petition with the Board and a statement of services

requesting approval of fees totaling $823.00.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated August 29, 2017 and the appeal was filed with the 

Board on September 1, 2017. The fee petition requests approval of services from September 1, 

2017 through April 23, 2018 and documents 2.30 total hours spent in connection with this appeal 

before the Board. The services are listed as: $475.00 per hour for 0.6 hours in 2017 and $490.00 

per hour for 0.7 hours in 2018 for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq.; $195.00 per hour for 0.1 hours for 

Paralegal Erika Bauer, and $195.00 per hour for 0.9 hours for Paralegal Jessica Duncan. The fee 

petition described the specific services provided for the amounts 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.

The Board notes that under 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e) “[n]o claim for a fee for legal or other 

service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board.” Under 

18 U.S.C. § 292, collecting a fee without the approval of the Board may constitute a misdemeanor, 

subject to fine or imprisonment up to a year or both. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition is granted in the amount of $823.00.

Issued: July 25, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board