United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of S.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION PLAN, Denver, CO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 15-1963

Issued: July 25, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Gregory A. Hall, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $900.00.1 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 a spects 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 its regulations, the Board considers fee petitions 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 

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

appeal. The underlying issue was whether appellant met his burden of proof to modify an April 2, 

2013 loss of wage-earning capacity (LWEC) determination. By decision dated April 8, 2015, an 

OWCP hearing representative affirmed a July 11, 2014 OWCP decision denying modification of 

the April 2, 2013 LWEC. The Board affirmed the April 8, 2015 OWCP hearing representative’s 

decision on September 9, 2016.

On appeal, counsel submitted an 11-page brief presenting a factual pattern and Board 

precedent in similar cases. This brief was received by the Board on October 7, 2015. Counsel

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). The Board notes that included with the counsel’s fee petition was a signed statement from 

appellant indicating that he found the requested fee to be reasonable and appropriate.
3

argued that original April 2, 2013 LWEC was based on ambiguous medical evidence, and that the 

work restrictions were 17 months old at the time of the decision.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated April 8, 2015, and the appeal was filed with the 

Board on September 29, 2015. The fee petition requests approval of time from September 29

through October 7, 2015, and documents 4.5 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the 

Board at $200.00 per hour for Gregory A. Hall, Esq.

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition and finds that itsatisfies 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 for up to a year or both.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition is granted in the amount of $900.00.

Issued: July 25, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board