United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of T.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

GREATER LOS ANGELES HEALTH CARE 

SYSTEM, Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-1164

Issued: December 15, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DENYING FEE PETITION

Before:

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,398.50.1 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 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.

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 defects:10

(1) The fee agreement is not attached.

(2) The fee petition fails to explain in detail how the claimed fee is 

justified under the five factors listed in this order. 

 

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 This list is intended to assist counsel but does not limit the Board’s discretion to evaluate any future fee petition 

on its own merits.
3

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.11

Issued: December 15, 2017

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board-

 

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

Board effective December 11, 2017.