United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of T.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU 

OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Santa Fe, NM, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-1262

Issued: December 13, 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:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,821.00.

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;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.9 

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. The underlying issue was a claim for total disability from July 10, 2006 

through September 26, 2013. By decision dated December 3, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s 

claim for compensation benefits. The Board’s January 11, 2017 decision set aside the 

December 3, 2015 OWCP decision and remanded the case for further development of the 

medical evidence.

On appeal, counsel submitted a five-page brief presenting the facts and Board precedent 

in similar cases. He argued that Board precedent supported finding that appellant was totally 

disabled for the period in question.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated December 3, 2015 and the appeal was filed with 

the Board on May 31, 2016. The fee petition requests approval of time from May 31, 2016 to 

January 11, 2017. The fee petition documents 3.3 hours spent in connection with this appeal 

before the Board at $475.00 per hour for 3.30 hours for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esquire, for a total 

of $1,567.50, 0.90 hours at $195.00 per hour for Paralegal Erika Bauer for a total of $175.50, and 

0.40 hours at $195.00 per hour for Paralegal Jessica Duncan for a total of $78.00.

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 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 

 

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 counsel’s fee petition was a signed statement from 

appellant indicating that she found the requested fee to be reasonable and appropriate.
3

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 

$1,821.00.

10

Issued: December 13, 2017

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

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

effective December 11, 2017.