United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of K.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Riverview, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-0404

Issued: December 20, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,598.50.1 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 regulation, 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 implanting 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;7and

(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. No response was 

received.9

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. The underlying issue was whether appellant met her burden of proof to 

establish a consequential emotional condition due to an April 17, 2012 employment injury. By 

decision dated September 17, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a consequential 

emotional condition. By decision dated April 11, 2016, the Board affirmed the September 17, 

2015 decision.

On appeal counsel had submitted a five-page brief addressing the factual and medical 

history of the case and presented Board precedent addressing the burden of proof regarding 

consequential claims and emotional condition claims. He argued that the medical evidence

established that appellant’s diagnosed emotional condition was caused by the April 17, 2012 

employment injury. Counsel requested that the Board expand the claim to include major 

depression and anxiety disorder.

On May 16, 2016 counsel provided a fee petition and statement of service.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated September 17, 2015, and the appeal was filed with 

the Board on December 22, 2015. The Board issued its decision on April 11, 2016. The fee 

petition requests approval of time from December 22, 2015 through May 5, 2016 and documents 

4.70 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the Board at $475.00 an hour for 

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq. on April 14, 2016, $425.00 an hour for Mr. Goodkin on December 22, 

2015 and January 15, 2016, and $195.00 per hour for Paralegal Erika Bauer. The fee petition 

described the specific services provided for the amount claimed.

 

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

indicating that she agreed with the requested fee for services rendered.
3

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 

$1,598.50.

Issued: December 20, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board