United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of T.L., Appellant 

and 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

HUMAN RESOURCES CENTER, 

Richmond, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0672 

Issued: August 10, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $376.50.1 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

 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). 
2

Pursuant to its regulations, the Board considered 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;7 and 

(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

 On September 15, 

2016 the Clerk of the Board received a signed statement in which appellant indicated that the 

requested fee of $376.50 was reasonable and appropriate. Appellant expressed her 

understanding that she was responsible for payment of the fee. 

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. By decision dated February 2, 2016, the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP) hearing representative affirmed an August 7, 2015 OWCP decision 

terminating appellant’s compensation effective that day as it found she refused an offer of 

suitable work, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c). By decision dated August 24, 2016, the Board 

reversed OWCP’s February 2, 2016 decision. The Board found that OWCP did not meet its 

burden of proof to establish that the modified social insurance specialist (claims representative, 

bilingual) position offered by the employing establishment was suitable. As the offered position 

 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 a representative’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 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 FECA appeals. 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 
3

was not suitable, the Board found OWCP’s termination of appellant’s compensation for refusing 

the offered position was improper. 

On September 9, 2016 counsel provided a fee petition and a statement of service 

requesting approval of fees totaling $376.50. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated February 2, 2016 and the appeal was filed with 

the Board on February 22, 2016. The fee petition requests approval of services from February 22 

to August 24, 2016 and documents 1.5 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the 

Board at $475.00 per hour for 0.3 hours for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq. and $195.00 per hour for 

1.2 hours for Paralegal Jessica Pope. The fee petition described the specific services provided 

for the amount claimed. 

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition, and finds that it satisfies the 

requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s implementing regulations. Counsel provided a 

detailed brief which aided the Board in its consideration of the issue on appeal, and provided an 

appropriate itemized statement of services performed with respect to the appeal. 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 up to a year or both. 

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

$376.50. 
4

Issued: August 10, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board