United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of J.P., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Anchorage, AK, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-0987 

Issued: August 22, 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 $1,442.50.1 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

 

                                                             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 considers fee petitions 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 regulation, 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. By decision dated September 10, 2015, the Board set aside OWCP’s 

October 8, 2013 decision, which affirmed a February 7, 2011 denial of appellant’s claim for a 

recurrence of disability commencing December 12, 2005. The Board remanded the case for 

further development of the factual evidence regarding whether the employing establishment had 

withdrawn appellant’s light-duty position. 

On appeal counsel submitted a five-page brief addressing the factual history of the case 

and citing legal authorities in support of his arguments, including section 2.1500.7(a)(4) of the 

OWCP procedure manual11 regarding the withdrawal of light-duty work with no previous loss of 

wage-earning capacity determination. He argued that the employing establishment withdrew 

appellant’s light-duty work in December 2005 in the absence of a reduction-in-force or a loss of 

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

that he found the requested fee to be reasonable and appropriate. 

11 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.7(a)(4) (June 2013). 
3

wage-earning capacity decision based on appellant’s light-duty job. Counsel also argued that 

appellant was unable to perform the regular work duties of his date-of-injury position as his 

physicians opined that he could only work with accommodations. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated October 8, 2013 and the appeal and supporting 

brief were filed with the Board on March 25, 2014. The fee petition requests approval of time 

from October 15, 2013 through September 10, 2015 and documents 1.10 hours spent in 

connection with this appeal before the Board at $425.00 per hour for Daniel M. Goodkin, 

Esquire, and 5.0 hours at $195.00 per hour each for Paralegals Erika E. Bauer and Jessica 

Gordon. 

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 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 

$1,442.50. 

Issued: August 22, 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