United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of G.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

TRAINING & DOCTRINE COMMAND, 

FORT RUCKER, AL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 15-1950

Issued: December 18, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Eric L. Pines, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant filed a fee petition in the amount of $2,100.00.

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 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).
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, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition. In a December 31, 

2015 letter, appellant indicated that he considered the requested fee in the amount of $2,100.00 

to be fair and reasonable.9

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. In its decision dated June 13, 2016, the Board affirmed the April 1, 2015 

decision of OWCP. The Board found that appellant had not met his burden of proof to establish 

that the December 13, 2010 employment incident caused or aggravated his diagnosed medical 

conditions. 

On appeal counsel submitted a 24-page brief with supporting legal citation in support of 

his appeal, citing pertinent case law in support of his arguments. He argued that OWCP should 

have accepted an aggravation or exacerbation of appellant’s multiple conditions. Counsel

provided a factual history of the claim and offered alternative arguments in support of his 

position. He also argued that appellant suffered new medical conditions resulting from the 

December 13, 2010 work incident and that the medical evidence of record supported his multiple 

conditions. 

 

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 the FECA appeals.

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

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

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated April 1, 2015 and the appeal was filed with the 

Board on September 28, 2015. The fee petition requests approval of time from June 19 through

September 28, 2015. It documents .60 hours at $300.00 per hour on December 26, 2014 for 

“review and corrections” for a total of $180.00 and 8.0 hours at $325.00 per hour on 

September 25, 2015 for “Draft ECAB brief” for a total of $2,600.00. This amounted to a total of 

$2,780.00. There were additional charges listed for December 26, 2014 ($180.00) which would 

not have been related to the appeal before the Board because the OWCP decision did not issue 

until April 1, 2015. Therefore, that amount would be disallowed. Counsel, however, discounted 

the total fee from $2,780.00 to $2,100.00. 

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.10

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 

$2,100.00.

11

Issued: December 18, 2017

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

10 The Board notes, however, that the fee agreement should always be provided when filing a fee petition with the 

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.