United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of K.V., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Castle Rock, CO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 15-0960

Issued: December 7, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

John S. Evangelisti, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $10,290.00.1 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.9 No response was 

received.

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. In the decision dated March 9, 2016, the Board reversed OWCP’s 

November 4, 2014 decision affirming a January 2, 2014 OWCP decision terminating appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits. 

On appeal counsel submitted a 22-page brief and attachments addressing the issues on 

appeal. He cited many legal authorities in support of his arguments and identified and argued 

medical evidence to challenge OWCP’s termination of compensation. 

In his fee petition, counsel addressed the exact amounts that were being claimed for work 

before the Board, and provided a May 6, 2015 letter detailing the fee agreement between counsel 

and appellant. Counsel addressed the usefulness of his services noting that he was successful in 

his argument, as the Board had reversed the decision of OWCP. He also discussed his 

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

 

4 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.

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 attorney must establish the complex or 

unusual nature of the appeal.

6 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.

7 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). 

8 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 FECA appeals. 

9

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).
3

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

charged by the staff of his law firm.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated November 4, 2014, the appeal was filed with the 

Board on March 26, 2015, and a supporting brief was filed with the Board on May 5, 2015. The 

fee petition requests approval of time from November 13, 2014 through October 26, 2015 and 

documents 34.90 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the Board at $350.00 per hour 

for John S. Evangelisti, Esquire, $275.00 per hour for Christopher Lopez, Esquire, and $175.00 

per hour for Paralegal Jodi Waldron.10

Counsel attached a May 6, 2015 fee agreement from Mr. Evangelisti which appellant

signed on October 7, 2015. The fee agreement indicated Mr. Evangelisti’s hourly rate was

$250.00, the hourly rate for associates was $175.00 and the hourly rate for paralegals was

$75.00. The fee petition charges for higher hourly rates than those in the fee agreement. It listed

10.10 hours at $350.00 per hour (or $3,535.00) for Mr. Evangelisti, 24.50 hours at $275.00 per 

hour (or $6,737.50) for Mr. Lopez, and .10 hours at $175.00 per hour or $17.50 for Ms. Waldron

resulting in a total fee request of $10,290.00. Based on the fee agreement appellant signed on 

October 7, 2015, however, the Board will reduce the fee to reflect the hourly rates set forth in the 

fee agreement. Nothing was submitted to the Board to justify the increase in fees. The Board 

will approve 10.10 hours at $250.00 per hour (or $2,525.00) for Mr. Evangelisti, 24.50 hours at 

$175.00 per hour (or $4,287.50) for Mr. Lopez, and .10 hours at $75.00 per hour (or $7.50) for

Ms. Waldron resulting in a total fee request of $6,820.00.

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition and finds it, as modified, otherwise 

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

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.

 

10 No fee was charged for .10 hours of professional services rendered on October 9, 2015 and .10 hours rendered 

on December 9, 2014 by Mr. Evangelisti.
4

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

$6,820.00.

Issued: December 7, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board