United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of B.Y., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. MARSHALS 

SERVICE, Charlotte, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0702

Issued: July 26, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel F. Read, 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 $700.00.

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.10

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

appeal. By decision dated December 20, 2017, OWCP affirmed the denial of appellant’s traumatic 

injury claim. By decision dated November 21, 2018, the Board set aside OWCP’s December 20, 

2017 decision and remanded the case for further development as to whether appellant’s diagnosed 

left knee condition was causally related to the accepted December 21, 2015 employment incident, 

to be followed by a de novo decision.

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 a nd 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). 

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

indicating that the requested fee of $700.00 was reasonable and appropriate. Appellant expressed her understanding 

that she was responsible for payment of the fee.
3

On appeal counsel submitted a fourteen-page memorandum which addresses the factual 

and procedural history of the case, as well as evidence submitted on reconsideration to OWCP. 

He further presented Board precedent regarding causal relationship.

On April 15, 2019 counsel provided a fee petition and a statement of services requesting 

approval of fees totaling $700.00.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated December 20, 2017 and the appeal was filed with 

the Board on February 14, 2018. The fee petition requests approval of time from February 6 

through November 30, 2018 and documents 5.18 hours spent in connection with this appeal before 

the Board at $175.00 per hour. Counsel noted a discount of $206.50, reducing the amount due of

$906.50 to $700.00. The fee petition described the specific services provided for the amount 

claimed.

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition andfinds 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 $700.00.

Issued: July 26, 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