United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of W.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Los Angeles, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 08-2411 

Issued: August 25, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Steven E. Brown, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant has filed a request for approval of attorney’s fee in the amount of 

eight thousand, seven hundred and eleven dollars and fifty cents ($8,711.50).1 By order dated 

May 6, 2014, the Board denied counsel’s request and allowed an additional 60 days for the 

submission of supplemental material information to review the request under the Board’s 

regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 5 01.9. 

The Board’s September 24, 2009 decision found that the issue of whether appellant had 

met his burden of proof to establish certain medical conditions causally related to his 

employment injury was not in posture for decision. The September 27, 2007 and August 4, 2008 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) were set aside and further 

development of the medical opinion directed on remand. Specifically, the Board found an 

unresolved conflict of medical opinion and remanded the case for referral to an impartial 

specialist. 

                                                             1

 The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (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

The documents on appeal include a five-page attachment to appellant’s AB-1 form 

addressing the issue on appeal. Counsel cited to several decisions of the Board in support of his 

contention that there remained a conflict of medical evidence. In citing William C. Bush, 40 

ECAB 1064 (1989), he argued that where there are two opposing reports of virtually equal 

weight and rationale, the case must be referred to an impartial medical specialist. Counsel also 

cited to Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989) to determine what composed a rationalized 

medical opinion, finding that appellant’s treating physician met that requirement. As noted, the 

Board found that the medical reports in the record were of equal weight sufficient to require an 

impartial specialist. 

On June 16, 2014 counsel responded to the Board’s May 6, 2014 order providing 

additional information for consideration of the fee request pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). He 

noted that appellant did not contest the amount of the fee.2

 Counsel addressed the usefulness of 

the representative services by noting that he submitted legal argument in the claim with citation 

to Board precedent that was found relevant to the issue on appeal. He noted that this was a case 

with a seven-year history and that he was successful in his argument, as the Board remanded the 

case for further development of the claim. 

Counsel noted that the time spent on the appeal was documented and addressed the 

customary local charges for similar services. He specifically addressed the hourly rates charged 

by the staff of his law firm in this appeal. In this regard, however, the Board finds excessive 

billing while the appeal was pending before the Board. In many cases, counsel included multiple 

billings by various staff members for “conference w/attorney (or w/attorney and paralegal) re: 

current status” or “review of file for status meeting.” In each of these meetings, which appear on 

the average of every six weeks, generally two attorneys and a paralegal are in attendance and bill 

for their time collectively. Each attendee’s participation is described in the exact same fashion. 

The only rationale offered for this periodic practice was “so as not to allow anything to ‘slip 

through the cracks’ and also to determine whether any new decisions, change in regulations or 

legal arguments that are successful in other cases might impact each claim.” All of these status 

conferences took place after the appeal was filed with the Board and before the Board’s decision 

was rendered. Absent a showing of a detailed explanation on how each particular conference 

assisted the appellant in furtherance of this appeal, the billed amounts for these status 

conferences are disallowed. 

09/10/2008 .3 hours $ 133.50 

10/03/2008 .1 hour $ 52.50 

10/08/2008 .3 hours $ 133.50 

01/14/2009 .3 hours $ 133.50 

02/11/2009 .3 hours $ 133.50 

03/05/2009 .3 hours $ 133.50 

                                                             2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.703(b) and the FECA Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Representative Services, Chapter 

2.1200.6 (June 2012) pertain to uncontested fees for work performed before OWCP. The procedures implemented 

by OWCP with regard to the consideration of fees are separate from the Board’s review of such applications under 

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). OWCP and the Board are two separate and distinct bodies and separate application to the 

Board is required for approval of a fee for legal or other services performed in connection with an appeal. Evelyn R. 

Adams, 10 ECAB 585 (1959). 
3

04/10/2009 .3 hours $ 133.50 

05/28/2009 .2 hours $ 81.00 

07/10/2009 .3 hours $ 133.50 

08/12/2009 .3 hours $ 133.50 

 $1,201.50 

The Board will disallow these 2.7 hours for a total of $1,201.50 as excessive and 

redundant.3

 The Board has reviewed the fee petition and additional information submitted by counsel 

and finds that it otherwise satisfies the requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s 

implementing federal regulations. 

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

thousand, five hundred and ten dollars ($7,510.00). 

Issued: August 25, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

                                                             3

 While not directly pertaining to claims under FECA, the Board finds instructive the decision of the United 

States Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). In any fee petition, counsel must use billing 

judgment and exclude redundant or unnecessary hours and to confirm that the fee requested is not excessive. 

Adequate documentation should be submitted to support the hours of work performed with specificity or a 

reasonably precise description of the work performed on behalf of the client.