United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of T.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST 

SERVICE, Albuquerque, NM, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-0807 

Issued: August 11, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Steven E. Brown, 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 $2,850.50.1 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 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 abovereferenced appeal. The underlying issue was whether appellant sustained an emotional condition 

in the performance of duty. By decision dated June 10, 2015, the Board affirmed OWCP’s 

January 9, 2014 denial of her claim as she had failed to establish a compensable factor of 

employment. Counsel filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board on June 12, 2015 which 

the Board denied on January 20, 2016. 

On appeal counsel submitted a four-page brief arguing that appellant had established a 

compensable factor of employment under FECA. In the petition for reconsideration, he 

submitted a two-page brief citing Board case law and again arguing that she had demonstrated a 

compensable work factor. 

 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 was obtained. 

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). 

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

that she found the requested fee to be reasonable and appropriate. 
3

Counsel, on February 22, 2016, submitted a fee petition providing an itemized 

description of the professional services rendered and the hourly rates charged. OWCP’s decision 

on appeal was dated January 9, 2014. The appeal was filed as received by the Board on 

February 26, 2014. The fee petition requests approval of time from January 30, 2014 through 

January 21, 2016 and documents 9.9 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the Board 

at $425.00 for four hours for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., and $195.00 5.90 hours for Paralegals 

Erika Bauer and Jessica Gordon. Counsel submitted a signed statement of service from appellant 

agreeing the requested fee was reasonable and appropriate. 

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

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

$2,850.50. 

Issued: August 11, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board