United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of L.B., claiming as guardian of 

A.V. (son of R.V.), Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, Lompoc, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 15-0905

Issued: December 15, 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

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,802.00.1 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 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 regulation (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,9appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition.10

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. By decision dated September 22, 2014, the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP) found that appellant had not met her burden of proof to establish survivor 

benefits for the benefit of the deceased employee’s son. By decision dated September 19, 2016, 

the Board set aside OWCP’s September 22, 2014 decision and remanded the case to OWCP for 

further development of the evidence.

On appeal counsel submitted a five-page brief containing supporting legal citation for the 

argument that the deceased employee developed a work-related emotional condition which 

contributed to his suicide, thereby entitling appellant to survivor benefits for the benefit of the 

deceased employee’s son.

 

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 FECA appeals.

9

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

10 The Board notes that included with the fee petition was a signed statement indicating that he found the 

requested fee to be reasonable.
3

On December 8, 2016 counsel filed a fee petition requesting approval of fees totaling 

$1,802.00, which addressed the general criteria found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). He provided a 

detailed account of the specific legal tasks performed by himself, another attorney, and a 

paralegal.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated September 22, 2014 and the appeal was filed with 

the Board on March 20, 2015. The fee petition requests approval of services from March 20, 

2015 to September 20, 2016 and documents 4.65 hours spent in connection with this appeal 

before the Board. Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq. billed his services (2.9 hours) at $425.00 per hour, 

for a total of $1,232.50, and Erika E. Bauer, a paralegal, billed her services (1.10 hours) at an 

hourly rate of $195.00, for a total of $214.50. Additionally, Steven E. Brown, Esq., billed 0.55 

hours at $550.00 per hour, for a total of $302.50 and 0.10 hours at an hourly rate of $525.00, for 

a total of $52.50. The fee petition described the specific services provided for the amounts of 

time 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. 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 

$1,802.00.11

Issued: December 15, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief 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.