1

United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.A., Appellant 

and 

U.S. GOVERNMENT, Employer

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 07-1935 

Issued: May 12, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Timothy Quinn, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S FEE 

Before: 

DAVID S. GERSON, Member1

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MCHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant has filed a request for approval of attorney’s fee in the amount of 

four hundred and ninety-five dollars ($495.00). He filed the request under the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs’ Rules of Procedure, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.703. 

The Board notes that all petitions for approval of fees for representative services are 

considered under the Board’s Rules of Procedure and are found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9.2

 

Under these regulations, the Board must consider the petition under the following general 

criteria: 

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

 

                                                             1

 David S. Gerson participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the Board effective July 2, 

2010 and did not participate in the preparation of this order. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8127; 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

3 The Board’s consideration of “usefulness” includes, but is not limited to, the frequency and quality of 

communication by the attorney with the client, the factual evidence and legal argument offered by the attorney and 

written pleadings filed in the case. The Board will also consider the usefulness of an attorney’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;6 and 

(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. No response was 

received. 

The Board, having considered the fee petition and supporting documentation, grants the 

fee petition. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition is granted in the sum of four 

hundred and ninety-five dollars ($495.00).8

Issued: May 12, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

                                                             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 attorney must establish the complex or 

unusual nature of the appeal. 

5

 The Board’s consideration of the “capacity” in which an attorney appears includes, but is not limited to, whether 

the attorney obtained a written retainer and fee agreement. 

6

 The Board’s evaluation of an attorney’s 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 counsel 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 attorneys often have clients in several states 

and that local custom must be balanced against national practice in the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

appeals. 

8

 Effective June 28, 2012, Alec J. Koromilas was appointed Alternate Judge.