United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of K.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Camarillo, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-0808 

Issued: November 28, 2016 

 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Steven E. Brown, 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 $1,232.00.1 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 the 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;7 and 

(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, which involved a February 3, 2014 merit decision wherein the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denied appellant’s occupational disease claim. Her 

counsel filed the appeal on February 26, 2014, which included a two-page application for review 

(AB-1) form. The Board issued its decision on August 15, 2014, which set aside in part 

OWCP’s prior decision, and remanded the case for further medical development. 

The fee petition requests approval of time from February 18 through August 20, 2014, 

and documents a total of 3.4 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the Board. 

Appellant’s lead counsel, Steven E. Brown, Esq., billed his services (0.40 hours) at an hourly 

rate of $525.00. Additionally, Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq. billed his services (1.90 hours) at 

$425.00 per hour, and Erika E. Bauer, a paralegal, billed her services (1.10 hours) at an hourly 

 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 FECA appeals. 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

10 Counsel’s fee petition was accompanied by a September 9, 2014 statement from appellant indicating her 

approval of the requested fee of $1,232.00. 
3

rate of $195.00.11 On the AB-1 form, counsel argued that OWCP had not properly considered a 

particular physician’s opinion regarding causal relationship. The AB-1 was dated February 17, 

2014, and the Board received it on February 26, 2014. After the appeal had been filed, the Board 

did not receive any additional information from either appellant or her counsel prior to issuing its 

August 15, 2014 decision. 

Although the issue on appeal -- causal relationship -- was not particularly complex, the 

Board notes that appellant’s counsel was instrumental in identifying certain medical evidence 

that was at least sufficient to warrant further development on the part of OWCP. As such, 

appellant prevailed before the Board, and on remand OWCP ultimately accepted her 

occupational disease claim. Counsel’s overall involvement on appeal proved beneficial; 

however, not all of the services he and/or his colleagues provided appear to have been useful. 

While the appeal was pending before the Board, counsel conducted three “case status” 

meetings, the first of which occurred within days of filing the February 17, 2014 Form AB-1. 

Thereafter, counsel and his colleagues met at 8-week intervals. The case status meetings were 

held on February 26, April 23, and June 18, 2014. On each occasion, Mr. Brown, Mr. Goodkin 

and Ms. Bauer participated in the meetings, and individually billed appellant 0.10 hours at their 

respective hourly rates. Counsel offered no rationale or justification for this redundant billing 

practice. Absent a detailed explanation of how each particular case status meeting -- and the 

individual participant’s involvement -- assisted appellant in furtherance of the appeal, the 

amounts billed for the February 26, April 23, and June 18, 2014 meetings are disallowed as 

excessive and redundant.12 Accordingly, the Board will disallow 0.90 hours on the above-noted 

dates: 

Steven E. Brown 0.30 @ $525.00/hour .... $157.50 

Daniel M. Goodkin 0.30 @ $425.00/hour .... $127.50 

Erika E. Bauer 0.30 @ $195.00/hour .... $ 58.50 

Total: 0.90 hours...................$343.50 

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition and finds that, with the above-noted 

modifications, counsel’s petition otherwise satisfies the requirements of section 501.9(e) of the 

Board’s implementing regulations. 

The Board further 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.

 11 Counsel did not provide any information regarding the customary local charges for similar services. Also, to 

the extent appellant and her counsel executed a retainer - fee agreement, counsel has not provided a copy to the 

Board. 

12 See In the Matter of J.D., Docket No. 13-0627 (issued April 28, 2016) (Order Granting Fee Petition). 
4

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

$888.50. 

Issued: November 28, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board