United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of R.V., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL SEA 

SYSTEMS COMMAND, Panama City, FL, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 15-0159

Issued: December 8, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Robert E. O’Dell, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant filed a request for approval of attorney fees in the amount of

$1,625.00.1 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 Act2(FECA) and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e).3

 

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

Id. at § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).
2

Under these regulations, the Board must consider the petition under the following general 

criteria:

(1) The usefulness of the Representative’s services;4

(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 By letter dated 

June 23, 2016, appellant confirmed that the $1,625.00 fee for legal services was fair and 

reasonable and necessary in relation to his case. 

The requested fee pertains to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. In the decision dated October 7, 2015, the Board set aside OWCP’s May 1, 

2014 decision finding that the case was not in posture for decision regarding whether appellant 

developed sensorineural hearing loss in the performance of duty. The Board remanded the case 

to OWCP to further develop the medical evidence. 

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

many legal authorities in support of his arguments and identified and argued medical evidence to 

challenge OWCP’s decision denying appellant’s claim for sensorineural hearing loss. 

Counsel filed a fee petition addressing the exact amounts that were being claimed for 

work before the Board, and provided an affidavit from appellant finding the fee reasonable. He

addressed the usefulness of his services noting that he was successful in his argument as the 

Board had remanded OWCP’s May 1, 2014 decision for further development. This subsequently 

resulted in a March 3, 2016 OWCP decision accepting the claim for bilateral sensorineural

 

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.

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.

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 charges” 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).
3

hearing loss, as well as a May 12, 2016 schedule award determination awarding nine percent 

permanent impairment of bilateral hearing loss. Counsel noted that appellant received 

compensation benefits in the amount of $21,049.56 as a result of his representation. He 

discussed his communication with appellant during his representation before the Board and 

addressed the customary local charges for similar services. Counsel provided a time and expense 

statement which specifically addressed the hourly rates charged by him during his representation.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated May 1, 2014. The appeal before the Board was 

filed on October 23, 2014 and a supporting brief was filed with the Board on 

December 24, 2014. The fee petition requested approval of time from October 23, 2014 through 

November 6, 2015 and documents 6.50 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the 

Board at $250.00 per hour for Robert E. O’Dell, Esquire for a total of $1,625.00.

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 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.”

10

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

$1,625.00.

Issued: December 8, 2017

Washington, DC

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

10 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge, participated in the preparation of this order, but was no longer a member of 

the Board effective November 16, 2015.