United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of A.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Columbus, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Nos. 13-0266 & 

17-0035

Issued: January 16, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stanley R. Stein, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DENYING FEE PETITION

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $10,050.00.

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 regulations, 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

Id. at § 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 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.10

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in two above-referenced 

appeals.

11

 By decision dated May 30, 2012, the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP) denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of total disability on or after February 24, 2010 

as appellant had not met his burden of proof to establish causal relationship. On November 16, 

2012 counsel filed a timely appeal from OWCP’s May 30, 2012 decision. By decision dated 

October 24, 2013, the Board affirmed OWCP’s May 30, 2012 decision finding that appellant had 

not met his burden of proof to establish an employment-related recurrence of disability.12

Upon return of the case record, OWCP developed appellant’s claim for compensation for 

the period August 22, 2010 to February 24, 2014. By decision dated April 21, 2016, it found that 

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a recurrence of total disability from

work for the period August 22, 2010 to February 24, 2014 causally related to the February 23, 

2009 accepted employment conditions. Counsel appealed to the Board on October 14, 2016. By 

decision dated June 22, 2018, the Board set aside the April 21, 2016 decision and remanded the 

case to OWCP for further development of the record as to the extent and degree of employment-

 

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, however, that included with the representative’s fee petition was a signed statement from

appellant dated January 4, 2017 indicating that he agreed with the requested fee of $10,050.00. Appellant expressed

his understanding that he was responsible for payment of the fee.

11 Although the fee petition only specifically references Docket No. 17-0035, as discussed infra, it appears to also 

seek approval of fees for services performed in relation to Docket No. 13-0266.

12 Docket No. 13-0266 (issued October 24, 2013).
3

related disability, especially with regard to the expansion of the accepted conditions to include 

dysthymic disorder.13

On January 4, 2017 counsel provided a fee petition requesting approval of fees totaling 

$10,050.00, which consisted of the following: $5,375.00 for 21.5 hours at $250.00 per hour for 

the period June 16, 2010 to December 4, 2012; $3,550.00 for 14.20 hours at $250.00 per hour for 

the period October 26, 2015 to February 9, 2016; and $1,125.00 for 4.50 hours at $250.00 per hour 

for the period April 27 to October 12, 2016.

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition, and finds that it does not satisfy the 

requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s regulations. The fee petition covers services 

provided in two separate appeals before the Board and does not provide a sufficiently detailed 

reporting of the particular services performed in connection with each appeal. The fee petition 

also fees pertaining to both Board and OWCP matters. The Board finds it difficult to ascertain the 

services for which fees are being charged when the document presented for approval includes fees 

for services before both OWCP and the Board.14 The Board further notes that counsel has attached 

a copy of a January 23, 2017 OWCP decision approving a fee in the amount of $10,050.00, which 

is the same amount that counsel is now claiming before this Board. 

In light of the foregoing ambiguities, the fee petition must be denied. 

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. 

 

13 Docket No. 17-0035 (issued June 22, 2018).

14 For example, services listed for the period June 16, 2010 to December 4, 2012, and January 17, 2013 to 

February 9, 2016 may fall within this category.
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition in the amount of $10,050.00 is denied 

and may be resubmitted to the Board within 60 days of the date of this order.

15

Issued: January 16, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

15 The Board notes that any updated fee petition produced by counsel should be filed separately under each of the 

two docket files, i.e., Docket No. 13-0266 and Docket No. 17-0035, and designate for each appeal the particular fees 

requested.