United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of M.P, Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Denver, CO, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 12-1846 & 13-349 

Issued: February 12, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Gregory A. Hall, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DENYING FEE PETITION 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

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

three thousand, two hundred and eighty dollars ($3,280.00) under Docket No. 12-1846.1 The 

Board notes that all petitions for approval of fees for representative services are considered under 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure and the applicable statute and regulation are found at 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9.2 

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

criteria: 

(1) The usefulness of the Representative’s services;3

(2) The nature and complexity of the appeal;4

                                                             1

 The appeals for both Docket No. 12-1846 and 13-349 were decided in the same Board decision dated 

March 14, 2013. A fee petition was only received for itemized charges under Docket No. 12-1846. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8127, 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

3 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. 

4

 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. 
2

(3) The capacity in which the Representative has appeared;5

(4) The actual time spent in connection with the Board appeal;6 and 

(5) Customary local charges for similar services.7

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.8

 No response was 

received. 

The Board, having considered the fee petition and supporting documentation, denies the 

fee petition. The Board finds that the petition provides insufficient information to allow 

approval of any portion of the amount claimed. The Board notes the following defect: The fee 

petition fails to explain in detail how the claimed fee is justified under the five factors listed in 

this order. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition is denied and may be resubmitted to 

the Board within 60 days of the date of this order.9

Issued: February 12, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

                                                             5

 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. 

6

 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). 

7

 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. 

8

 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

9

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge, participated in the preparation of the prior order, but was no longer a 

member of the Board effective December 27, 2014.