United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of E.B., Appellant

and

PEACE CORPS, VOLUNTEER SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-1147

Issued: December 13, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

Appellant’s representative has filed a fee petition in the amount of $784.50.

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).

Pursuant to its regulation, the Board considers fee petitions under the following criteria:

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

 

1

FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)) and the 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 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.
2

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

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

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

(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.9

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) accepted 

appellant’s occupational disease claim for major depression -- recurrent. The issue on appeal 

was whether appellant established that he was totally disabled due to his employment-related 

major depression. By decision dated November 4, 2016, the Board affirmed OWCP’s April 28, 

2016 decision denying wage-loss compensation. The Board found that the medical evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish employment-related disability for the claimed period.

In support of the appeal, appellant’s representative submitted a three-page brief dated 

May 10, 2016 in which he set forth the facts and argued legal precedent relevant to the issue 

before the Board. As noted, the Board affirmed OWCP’s denial of wage-loss compensation for 

the claimed period. 

On December 7, 2016, appellant’s representative provided a fee petition and statement of 

service requesting approval of fees totaling $784.50 for the period May 10 through 

November 7, 2016. The petition documents 2.30 hours spent in connection with the appeal 

before the Board at $475.00 an hour for 1.20 hours for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esquire, for a total of 

$570.00 and $195.00 per hour for .90 hours for Paralegal Jessica Pope for a total of $175.50 and 

.20 hours for Paralegal Erika Bauer for a total of $39.00. The fee petition described the specific 

services provided for the amount claimed.

 

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 representative must establish the complex or 

unusual nature of the appeal.

5 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.

6 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).

7 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.

8

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

9 The fee petition was accompanied by a December 3, 2016 signed statement from appellant expressing her belief 

that the fees charged by counsel were reasonable and appropriate.
3

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

requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s implementing regulations.10

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 

$784.50.

11

Issued: December 13, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

10 Supra note 6.

11 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the original decision, but was no longer a member of the Board 

effective December 11, 2017.