United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of M.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Denver, CO, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket Nos. 12-1846 & 13-

0349 

Issued: November 8, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Gregory A. Hall, 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 fee petition in the amount of $3,560.00.1 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

Pursuant to its regulations, the Board considers fee petitions under the following general 

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 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

By order dated February 12, 2015 the Board denied counsel’s fee petition as it had failed 

to adequately delineate the services performed and otherwise failed to explain in detail how the 

claimed fee was justified under the five factors listed above. Counsel was permitted 60 days to 

resubmit the fee petition. 

As required by the Board’s regulation, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition.9 

 The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. By decision dated March 14, 2013 (concerning both Docket Nos. 12-1846 

and 13-0349) the Board set aside the May 18 and November 15, 2012 decisions of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) and remanded the case to OWCP for further 

action.10 The Board found the case was not in posture for determination regarding whether the 

December 7, 2007 wage earning capacity determination should be modified. 

On appeal, counsel submitted an 11-page brief in support of Docket No. 12-1846 appeal 

and a 6-page brief in support of the Docket No. 13-0349 appeal. Both briefs contained 

supporting legal citation for the argument that the December 7, 2007 wage-earning capacity 

determination of OWCP should be modified. Counsel did not request oral argument before the 

Board. 

On April 6, 2015 counsel provided a supplemental fee petition addressing the 

deficiencies previously noted by the Board. He clarified the events listed in the itemized fee 

petition and the hourly charges for the individuals in the itemized statements. Counsel addressed 

 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). The Board notes that included with the fee petition was a signed statement from appellant 

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

10 OWCP issued a May 18, 2012 wage-earning capacity determination in connection with the file associated with 

Docket No. 12-1846 and a November 15, 2012 wage-earning capacity determination in connection with the file 

associated with Docket No. 13-0349. 
3

the usefulness of his services noting that the case had some complexity complex and that he was 

successful in his argument to the Board. He also discussed his communication with appellant 

during the representation before the Board and addressed the customary local charges for similar 

services. Counsel specifically addressed his hourly rates and noted that they had been found 

reasonable in other administrative tribunals. 

OWCP’s decisions on appeal were dated May 18 and November 27, 2012 and the appeals 

were filed with the Board on August 30, 2012. The fee petition requests approval of time from 

August 27, 2012 through November 26, 2012 and documents 16.4 hours spent in connection 

with the appeal before the Board for Docket No. 12-1846 and 1.4 hours spent in connection with 

the appeal for Docket No. 13-0349, for a total of 17.8 hours. The fee petition also documents the 

customary local charges for similar services as $200.00 per hour. 

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 regulation. 

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 sum of 

$3,560.00.11 

Issued: November 8, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 11 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.