United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of M.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Staten Island, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0081 

Issued: August 11, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Robert J. Helbock, 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 $700.00.1 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 considers fee petitions 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;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. 

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. By decision dated January 15, 2016, the Board affirmed OWCP’s April 18, 

2014 decision (1) denying modification of its termination of appellant’s compensation benefits 

effective March 2, 2012 as she no longer had any residuals or disability causally related to her 

accepted employment injuries, (2) finding that appellant had not established any continuing 

residuals or disability from her accepted employment injuries on or after March 2, 2012, and 

(3) denying acceptance of a back injury as a consequence of her accepted work injuries. 

On appeal counsel had submitted an Application for Review (AB-1 Form) and a 12-page 

brief addressing the factual history of the case and arguing that the medical opinions of 

appellant’s treating physicians were sufficient to establish that appellant had sustained a workrelated back injury and citing relevant case law. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated April 18, 2014 and the appeal and supporting 

AB-1 Form and brief were filed with the Board on October 15, 2014. The fee petition requests 

approval of time from June 5, 2014 through January 21, 2016 and documents 6.49 hours spent in 

connection with this appeal before the Board at $350.00 per hour for time spent outside court and 

$400.00 per hour for time spent at a court proceeding for counsel. Counsel advised that, in view 

of the Board’s decision, he requested approval only of an attorney’s fee of $700.00 for services 

rendered in drafting and filing the appeal. 

                                                             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

It is noted that the fee agreement signed by appellant did not reference work before the 

Board. In the future, such fee agreements should be specific as to the forum, the state where 

counsel is retained, hourly rates, and the specific legal work performed. 

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 

$700.00. 

Issued: August 11, 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