United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of V.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION,

San Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-0062

Issued: January 7, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $4,077.00.

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 Act2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

Under these regulations, the Board must consider the petition 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 regulations, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition.9 On January 11, 2018

the Clerk of the Appellate Board’s received a statement signed on December 30, 2017 in which 

appellant indicated that the requested fee of $4,077.00 was reasonable and appropriate. Appellant 

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

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

appeal. By decision dated May 29, 2015, the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP) found that appellant had not met his burden of proof to establish total disability causally 

related to his accepted employment injuries. By decision dated September 2, 2015, OWCP denied

appellant’s request for reconsideration. Appellant, through counsel, filed an appeal to the Board 

on October 14, 2015 and submitted a seven-page brief citing to legal precedent in support of the 

argument that appellant was entitled to wage-loss compensation for the period claimed. By 

decision dated May 18, 2016, the Board affirmed the September 2 and May 29, 2015 decisions. 

Counsel subsequently filed a six-page petition for reconsideration on May 31, 2016. By order 

dated August 29, 2017, the Board denied the petition for reconsideration.

On January 11, 2018 counsel provided a fee petition requesting approval of fees totaling 

$4,077.00. The fee petition requests approval of services from September 10, 2015 to 

November 2, 2017 and documents 11.00 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the 

Board. It itemizes the services as 6.90 hours at $475.00 per hour for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq. and 

4.10 hours at $195.00 per hour for paralegal Erika Bauer. The fee petition describes the specific 

services provided for the amounts of time claimed.

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 concludes 

that the fee requested is reasonable.

 

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).
3

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.

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

$4,077.00.

10

Issued: January 7, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

10 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the Board’s May 18, 2016 decision and the August 29, 2017 Order 

Denying Petition for Reconsideration, but was no longer a member of the Board effective December 11, 2017.