United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of C.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION 

REGIONAL OFFICE, Oakland, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-1222

Issued: December 14, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodwin, 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 filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,675.00.

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 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;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 the abovereferenced appeal. The Board notes that in its decision dated March 9, 2017, it set aside the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) January 4, 2016 decision finding that the 

case was not in posture for decision and remanded the case for further medical development 

regarding whether appellant developed a lumbar condition causally related to factors of his 

federal employment. 

On appeal counsel submitted a five-page brief addressing the issues on appeal. He cited 

legal authorities in support of his arguments and identified and argued medical evidence to 

challenge OWCP’s decision denying appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

On April 11, 2017 counsel provided a fee petition addressing the usefulness of his 

services based on the nature and complexity of the claim and actual time spent on development 

and representation of the claim. Counsel discussed his communication with appellant during his 

representation before the Board and addressed the customary local charges for similar services. 

He provided a time and expense statement which specifically addressed the hourly rates charged 

by him during his representation.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated January 4, 2016 and the appeal was filed with the 

Board on May 17, 2016. The fee petition requests approval of time from April 20, 2016 through 

March 13, 2017 and documents 5.00 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the Board. 

The fee petition documents the fees as $475.00 per hour for 2.50 hours for Daniel M. Goodkin, 

 

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 FECA appeals.

9

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

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

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

Esquire for a total $1,187.50, and $195.00 per hour for 2.50 hours for Paralegal Erika Bauer for a 

total of $487.50. The statement is clear and detailed, and counsel has personally affirmed the 

correctness of the fee. 

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.

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 

$1,675.00.

11

Issued: December 14, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

11 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the prepration of this order, but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective December 11, 2017.