United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of P.P., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Sacramento, CA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0522 

Issued: December 13, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,430.25.1 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;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. 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 his burden of proof to 

establish an employment-related injury in the performance of duty on October 4, 2013. By 

decisions dated April 9 and December 23, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that 

his fall on October 4, 2013 was idiopathic and therefore not compensable. By decision dated 

June 1, 2016, the Board found that appellant’s fall on October 4, 2013 was an unexplained fall 

that occurred in the performance of duty. As such, the case was not in posture for decision 

regarding the nature and extent of any injury or disability that resulted from the fall. 

On appeal, counsel submitted a 10-page brief addressing the factual history of the case 

and presented Board precedent addressing idiopathic and unexplained falls. He argued that the 

October 4, 2013 fall was not idiopathic and occurred in the performance of duty. Counsel 

requested that the denial be reversed. 

On June 27, 2016 counsel filed a fee petition and a statement of service. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated December 23, 2014 and the appeal was filed with 

the Board on January 20, 2015. The Board issued its decision on June 1, 2016. The fee petition 

requests approval of time from January 5, 2015 through June 2, 2016 and documents 4.45 hours 

spent in connection with this appeal before the Board at $425.00 and $475.00 an hour for 

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., $525.00 an hour for Steven E. Brown, Esq., and $195.00 per hour for 

Paralegals Erika Bauer and Jessica Pope. 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 regulation. 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 

$1,430.25.10

Issued: December 13, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 10 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge, participated in the decision but was no longer a member of the Board 

effective November 16, 2015.