United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of G.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Wichita, KS, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-495 

Issued: April 28, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Daniel M. Goodkin, 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 has filed a fee petition in the amount of $4,850.50.1 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

By order dated February 23, 2015, the Board denied counsel’s fee petition as it had failed 

to adequately explain in detail the hourly rate of billing for the persons identified in the 

statement, and otherwise failed to explain in detail how the claimed fee was justified under the 

five factors listed above. Counsel was permitted 60 days to resubmit the fee petition. 

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 the abovereferenced appeal. The underlying issue was a January 13, 2007 claim for recurrence of 

disability and the requested expansion of accepted conditions to include complex regional pain 

syndrome. By decision dated November 23, 2012 OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a merit 

review of the issues, finding that appellant had failed to raise substantive legal questions nor 

submitted new and relevant medical evidence. By decision dated December 24, 2013, the Board 

affirmed OWCP’s denial of a merit review under 5 U.S.C. 8128(a). Counsel filed a petition for 

reconsideration of the decision with the Board on January 23, 2014 which the Board denied on 

June 4, 2014. 

On appeal, counsel submitted a four-page brief arguing that the evidence and argument 

submitted to OWCP had been not only new but also relevant. Counsel cited Board precedent to 

support his argument on appeal. 

On March 15, 2015 counsel provided a supplemental fee petition addressing the 

deficiencies previously noted by the Board. He clarified the two different amounts being 

charged for individuals in the itemized statements. Counsel addressed the usefulness of his 

 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

services noting that the case was complex and dated back to 1999. Counsel stated that although 

not successful before the Board, counsel was able to change its approach in the case and 

ultimately was successful in obtaining compensation benefits for appellant. Counsel discussed 

his communication with appellant during the representation before the Board and addressed the 

customary local charges for similar services. He specifically addressed the hourly rates charged 

by the staff of his law firm, noting that they had been found reasonable in other administrative 

tribunals. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated November 23, 2012 and the appeal was filed with 

the Board on January 2, 2013. The fee petition requests approval of time from December 24, 

2012 through June 9, 2014 and documents 15.20 hours spent in connection with this appeal 

before the Board at $525.00 per hour for Steven E. Brown, Esq., $350.00 for Daniel M. Goodkin, 

Esq., before February 1, 2013 and $425.00 per hour after that date, and $150.00 per hour for 

Paralegal Erika Bauer before February 1, 2013 and $195.00 per hour after that date. 

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition, and finds it satisfies the requirements 

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

$4,850.50. 

Issued: April 28, 2016 

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