United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of S.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Smithtown, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 14-0441

Issued: December 7, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Deborah G. Helprin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,328.00.1 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 

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

criteria:

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

 

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).

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;7and

(5) Customary local charges for similar services.8

As required by the Board’s regulation, 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.10

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. By decision dated September 5, 2013, the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP) terminated appellant’s wage-loss and entitlement to schedule award 

compensation benefits effective that date as she refused an offer of suitable work, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8106(c). By decision dated June 24, 2014, the Board affirmed the September 5, 2013 

OWCP decision.

On appeal counsel submitted a two-page letter which presented Board precedent and 

FECA’s implementing regulation regarding the procedural requirements for terminating an 

employee’s compensation for failure to accept suitable work. She argued that OWCP’s 

termination decision should be reversed and appellant’s compensation should be reinstated with 

back pay as OWCP had failed to issue a 15-day notice allowing her a second chance to accept 

the employing establishment’s July 26, 2013 job offer. Counsel also argued that appellant’s 

decision to retire on disability was a valid reason for her refusal to accept the offered job.

Counsel provided a handwritten fee petition and a letter requesting approval of fees 

totaling $1,328.00.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated September 5, 2013 and the appeal was filed with 

the Board on December 20, 2013. The fee petition requests approval of time from October 21, 

2013 through June 30, 2014, and documents 4.6 hours spent in connection with this appeal 

 

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

that she found the requested fee to be reasonable and appropriate. 
3

before the Board at $300.00 per hour for Deborah G. Helprin, Esquire.

11

 The fee petition 

described the specific services provided for the amount claimed and generally addressed the 

usefulness of her services.

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 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 

$1,328.00.12

Issued: December 7, 2017

Washington, DC

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

11 The Board notes that 4.6 hours times $300.00 equals $1,380.00. Counsel reduced this amount to $1,328.00 

without explanation.

12 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge, participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective November 16, 2015 and did not participate in the preparation of this order.