United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of P.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, EMPLOYEE 

BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Philadelphia, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-1714

Issued: February 3, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Michael E. Overman, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,856.75.

1

 The Board 

notes that all petitions for approval of fees for a representative’s services are considered under 

the Board’s statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act2(FECA) and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

Pursuant to its regulations, the Board must consider the petition 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 regulation (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

The fee petition contains an itemized statement setting forth a description of the work 

performed on appeal, the time and hourly rate for each charge, and the total balance of fees in the 

amount of $1,062.75. 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. As an attachment to the fee petition is an acknowledgement, signed 

by appellant on April 7, 2019, that she consented to payment of a fee in the amount of $1,062.75. 

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition, and finds that it satisfies the 

requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure.

10

 However, the Board finds 

that the fee shall be granted in the amount of $1,062.75 as that amount is consistent with the 

petition’s itemized statement and has been acknowledged by appellant as the amount owed. The 

petition does not support a fee in the amount of $1,856.75, as requested, as the petition does not 

contain a basis for claiming an additional $794.00 fee.

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.”

11

 Under 

18 U.S.C. § 292, collecting a fee without the approval of the Board may constitute a 

misdemeanor, subject to fine or imprisonment up to one year, or both.

 

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 Supra note 3.

11 Id.
3

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

$1,062.75.

12

Issued: February 3, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

12 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the original decision, but was no longer a member of the Board 

effective December 11, 2017.