United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of M.G., widow of R.G., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 

San Ysidro, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-0625

Issued: December 28, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $2,239.00.1 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 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).
2

Pursuant to its regulation, the Board considered the fee petition under the following 

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 No response was 

received.10

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. The underlying merit issue was whether appellant, a widow, met her burden 

of proof to establish that the death of her husband, a federal employee, was causally related to 

factors of his federal employment. In merit decisions dated September 10 and December 11, 

2015, the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denied the claim, finding the 

medical evidence insufficient to establish that the employee’s death was employment related.

On appeal counsel submitted an eight-page brief presenting the facts and Board precedent 

in similar cases. He argued that the record established that the employee encountered workrelated stress and that a conflict in medical evidence had been created regarding whether stress 

contributed to his death.

 

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 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 Included with counsel’s fee petition submitted to the Board was a December 30, 2016 statement by appellant 

that the fees requested were reasonable.
3

Counsel provided a fee petition and statement of service before the Board on 

January 10, 2017. OWCP’s decisions on appeal were dated September 10 and December 11, 

2015 and the appeal was filed with the Board on February 12, 2016. The Board issued its 

decision on December 9, 2016. The fee petition requests approval of time from February 8, 2016 

through December 15, 2016 and documents 6.6 total hours spent in connection with this appeal 

before the Board at $475.00 per hour for 3.4 hours for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esquire for a total of 

$1,615.00, and $195.00 an hour for 3.2 hours for Paralegal Erika Bauer for a total of $624.00.

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.11

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 

$2,239.00.

12

Issued: December 28, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

11 The Board notes that a fee agreement should always accompany a fee petition submitted to the Board for 

approval.

12 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the preparation of this order, but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective December 11, 2017.