United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of S.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Philadelphia, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-0640 

Issued: November 28, 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 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,285.50.1 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

Pursuant to its regulations, 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 Id. at § 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 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;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 a claim for compensation for disability due to a 

December 14, 2011 employment injury. By decision dated August 28, 2013, OWCP denied 

appellant’s claim for compensation. By decision dated June 23, 2014, the Board affirmed the 

denial of compensation for the period beginning December 31, 2011 because appellant’s 

temporary appointment had expired. The Board, however, found the case not in posture for 

decision as to disability beginning July 25, 2012 due to the authorized surgery. The case was 

remanded for further action. 

On appeal counsel submitted a two-page brief arguing that OWCP had erred in 

determining that appellant was not entitled to wage-loss compensation due to her having been on 

temporary assignment. Rather counsel argued that her light duty position had been withdrawn. 

Although the Board did not agree with counsel’s argument, it did nonetheless remand the case 

for further development as to whether wage loss compensation was warranted for a period of 

time surrounding her authorized July 25, 2012 surgery. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated August 28, 2013 and the appeal was filed with the 

Board on January 28, 2014. The fee petition requests approval of time from January 22, 2014 

through March 21, 2014, and documents 4.3 hours spent in connection with this appeal before 

the Board at $525.00 per hour for Steven E. Brown, Esquire; at $425.00 per hour for Daniel M. 

                                                             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

Goodkin, Esquire; at $195.00 per hour for Paralegal Erika Bauer; and at $195.00 per hour for 

Paralegal Jessica Gordon. 

In this regard, however, the Board finds excessive billing while the appeal was pending 

before the Board. In two cases, counsel included multiple billings by various staff members for 

“Conference re client’s case status” or “Office meeting re case status.” This billing occurred on 

February 20 and March 19, 2014. In each of these meetings, which occurred approximately six 

weeks apart, one or two attorney, along with a paralegal, were in attendance and each billed for 

the time collectively. Each attendee’s participation is described in similar fashion. Absent a 

detailed explanation on how each particular conference or meeting, and each attendee, assisted 

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

meetings are disallowed.11 Accordingly, the Board will disallow 0.50 hours on the above-noted 

dates: 

Steven E. Brown 0.10 @ $525.00/hour $ 52.50 

Daniel M. Goodkin 0.20 @ $425.00/hour $ 85.00 

Jessica Gordon 0.20 @ $195.00/hour $ 39.00 

Total: 0.50 hours $176.50 

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition and finds that, with the above-noted 

modifications, counsel’s petition otherwise satisfies the requirements of section 501.9(e) of the 

Board’s implementing regulations. 

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. 

                                                             11 See J.D., Docket No. 13-0627 (issued April 28, 2016) (Order Granting Fee Petition). 
4

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

$1,109.00.12

Issued: November 28, 2016 

Washington, DC

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

                                                             12 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge, participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective December 27, 2014 and did not participate in the preparation of this order.