United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of H.H., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

SURFACE WAR CENTER, Port Hueneme, CA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0770 

Issued: June 22, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant filed a request for approval of an attorney’s fee in the amount of 

$4,419.50. The Board notes that all petitions for approval for fees for representative’s services 

are considered under the Board’s statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act,1

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

Pursuant to its regulations, the Board must consider fee petitions under the following 

general criteria: 

(1) The usefulness of the Representative’s services;2

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8127 

2

 The Board’s consideration of “usefulness” includes, but is not limited to, the frequency and quality of 

communication by the attorney with the client, the factual evidence and legal argument offered by the attorney and 

written pleadings filed in the case. The Board will also consider the usefulness of an attorney’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;3

(3) The capacity in which the Representative has appeared;4

(4) The actual time spent in connection with the Board appeal;5 and 

(5) Customary local charges for similar services.6

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.7

 No response was 

received.8

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. In the decision dated October 8, 2015, the Board set aside OWCP’s 

November 14, 2014 decision. The case was remanded for OWCP to request clarification from 

Dr. William P. Curran, a second opinion Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, addressing 

appellant’s period of disability. 

On appeal counsel submitted a seven-page brief addressing the issues on appeal. He 

cited a number of Board decisions in support of his arguments. Counsel also identified and 

argued medical evidence to challenge OWCP’s denial of wage-loss compensation. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated November 14, 2014, the appeal was filed with the 

Board on February 27, 2015, and a supporting brief was filed with the Board on 

February 27, 2015. The fee petition requests approval of time from December 5, 2014 through 

October 15, 2015 and documents 12.9 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the 

Board at $425.00 per hour for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esquire, $525.00 per hour for Steven E. 

Brown, Esquire, and $195.00 per hour for Paralegal Erika Bauer. 

In his petition, counsel addressed the exact amounts that were being claimed for work 

before the Board, and provided a statement of service detailing the fee agreement between 

                                                             3

 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 attorney must establish the complex or 

unusual nature of the appeal. 

4

 The Board’s consideration of the “capacity” in which an attorney appears includes, but is not limited to, whether 

the attorney obtained a written retainer and fee agreement. 

5

 The Board’s evaluation of an attorney’s 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 counsel 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). 

6

 The Board’s consideration of customary, local fees recognizes that attorneys often have clients in several states 

and that local custom must be balanced against national practice in the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

appeals. 

7

 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

8

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

he agreed with the requested fee. 
3

appellant and counsel, which appellant signed on October 26, 2015. Counsel addressed the 

usefulness of his services noting that he was successful in his argument, as the Board had set 

aside OWCP’s decision and remanded for clarification of the second opinion physician’s 

opinion. He specifically addressed the hourly rates charged by the staff of his law firm. 

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 based on the hourly rates noted in the fee agreement between 

Mr. Goodkin and appellant. 

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 up to a year or both. 

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

$4,419.50.9

Issued: June 22, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

                                                             9

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

Board effective November 16, 2015 and did not participate in the preparation of this order.