United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of I.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Georgetown, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-0581

Issued: December 13, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $2,675.00.1 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

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

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

criteria:

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

 

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).

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 by the 

representative 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.
2

(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;7and 

(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. No response was 

received.9

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. The underlying issue was whether appellant had established an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty. In a decision dated December 2, 2015, OWCP denied her 

emotional condition claim as it found that she had not established a compensable factor of 

employment. By decision dated December 12, 2016, the Board set aside the December 2, 2015 

decision after finding that appellant had established compensable employment factors. It 

remanded the case for OWCP to evaluate the medical evidence.

On appeal counsel submitted a six-page brief in support of his argument that OWCP 

erred in denying appellant’s emotional condition claim. He asserted that she had established 

sexual harassment by a supervisor and error or abuse by the employing establishment, citing 

Board case law and decisions by the Merit Systems Protection Board.

On January 4, 2017 counsel filed a fee petition describing the services performed on 

behalf of appellant before the Board, the time spent on the services, and the exact amount 

claimed. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated December 2, 2015 and the appeal was filed with 

the Board on February 8, 2016. The fee petition requests approval of time from December 15, 

2015 through December 12, 2016 and documents 6.80 hours spent in connection with this appeal 

before the Board. This is comprised of: .60 hours at $475.00 per hour for Daniel M. Goodkin,

Esquire, for a total of $285.00; 3.70 hours at $425.00 per hour for Mr. Goodkin for a total of 

$1,572.50; 1.0 hour at $525.00 per hour for Steven E. Brown, Esquire for a total of $525.00; .20 

 

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

indicating that she agreed with the requested fee for services rendered.
3

hours at $195.00 per hour for Erika Bauer, paralegal, for a total of $39.00; and 1.3 hours at 

$195.00 per hour for Jessica Pope, paralegal, for a total of $253.50.

The Board has carefully 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.10

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 

19 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 sum of 

$2,675.00.11

Issued: December 13, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

10 The Board notes that the fee agreement should always be provided to the Board when filing a fee petition.

11 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the original decision, but was no longer a member of the Board 

effective December 11, 2017.