United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of B.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Federal Way, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-0628 

Issued: June 22, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Steven E. Brown, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant filed a fee petition in the amount of $3,255.50.1 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

Pursuant to its regulation, the Board considered the fee petition under the following 

criteria: 

(1) The usefulness of the Representative’s services;4

 

                                                             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). 

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. 
2

(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. No response was 

received.9 

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. The Board notes that in its decision dated July 21, 2014, it found that OWCP 

properly computed appellant’s pay rate for compensation purposes as of April 11, 2011. 

On appeal counsel had submitted a one-page brief with supporting legal citation in 

support of his arguments that OWCP erroneously determined her pay rate as of April 11, 2011. 

By decision dated July 21, 2014, the Board affirmed OWCP’s December 19, 2013 rate of pay 

determination. 

On August 11, 2014 counsel filed a petition for reconsideration. He again argued that the 

Board improperly determined appellant’s pay rate. Counsel further argued that appellant’s 

condition did not worsen from July 30, 2010 to August 11, 2011, nor was appellant exposed to 

the same work conditions which had caused or aggravated her injury. By decision dated June 12, 

2015, the Board denied the petition for reconsideration. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated December 19, 2013 and the appeal was filed with 

the Board on January 21, 2014. The fee petition requests approval of time from January 17, 

2014 through September 2, 2015 and documents 9.70 hours spent in connection with this appeal 

before the Board. The fee petition documents the fees as $525.00 per hour for Steven E. Brown, 

Esquire, $425.00 per hour for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esquire, and $195.00 per hour for Paralegals 

Erika Bauer, Jessica Gordon, and Jessica Pope. Counsel cited the exact amounts that were being 

claimed for work before the Board, and provided an affidavit from appellant, dated 

                                                             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

 The Board notes that included with the representative’s fee petition was a signed statement from appellant 

indicating that she agreed with the requested fee for services rendered. 
3

September 25, 2015, finding the fee reasonable. The statement is clear and detailed, and the 

attorney has personally affirmed the correctness of the fee. 

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds that it satisfies the requirements of 

section 501.9(e) of the Board’s implementing regulations. The Board after review of the petition 

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 

19 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 

$3,255.50. 

Issued: June 22, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board