United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of K.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Columbus, IN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 12-1467 

Issued: January 5, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Joseph E. Allman, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant filed a request for approval of attorney fees in the amount of ten 

thousand, two hundred, eighty-seven dollars and fifty cents ($10,287.50).1

 By order dated 

April 2, 2014, the Board denied counsel’s request and allowed an additional 60 days for the 

submission of supplemental material information to review the request under the Board’s 

regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9. 

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. The Board’s April 5, 2013 decision found that the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs (OWCP) properly denied expansion of appellant’s claim to include a 

bilateral shoulder condition but reversed OWCP’s termination of appellant’s compensation and 

medical benefits due to an unresolved conflict of medical evidence as to whether appellant 

continued to have residuals of her accepted cervical condition. 

The documents on appeal include a four-page brief addressing the issues before the 

Board. Counsel summarized the medical evidence in the record and argued that it was sufficient 

to expand acceptance of the bilateral shoulder condition and that it established appellant 

                                                             1

 The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (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

continued to have residuals of the accepted conditions. Counsel referenced no statutory, 

regulatory or procedural authority nor did he cite to any Board precedent in his brief. Although 

the Board found that appellant had not submitted sufficient evidence to expand her claim to 

include bilateral shoulder conditions, it reversed OWCP’s termination of her wage-loss and 

medical compensation benefits. 

On May 29, 2014 counsel responded to the Board’s April 2, 2014 order providing 

additional information for consideration of the fee request pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). He 

noted that appellant had approved the hourly rate charged and that his fee had recently been 

approved by OWCP.2

 He addressed the usefulness of the representative services by noting that 

he prevailed on the termination issue. Appellant was awarded approximately two years of 

compensation benefits due to counsel’s effort. Counsel also addressed the time his law firm 

spent on the case, in communication with appellant and addressed the customary local charges 

for similar services. He specifically addressed the hourly rates charged by the staff of his law 

firm in this appeal. 

Counsel clarified that his original request for approval of attorney fees had included work 

before both OWCP and the Board. He amended his request to include only 6.25 hours at 

$250.00 per hour for a total of $1,875.00 from June 22, 2012 to April 8, 2013. The Board has 

duly considered the matter and finds that it satisfies the requirements of section 501.9(e) of the 

Board’s implementing federal regulations. 

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

thousand, eight hundred and seventy-five dollars ($1,875.00).3

Issued: January 5, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

                                                             2

 The procedures implemented by the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) with regard to the 

consideration of fees are separate from the Board’s review of such applications under section 501.9(e). OWCP and 

the Board are two separate and distinct bodies and separate application to the Board is required for approval of a fee 

for legal or other services performed in connection with an appeal. Evelyn R. Adams, 10 ECAB 585 (1959). 

3

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge, who participated in the preparation of the opinion, was no longer a member 

of the Board after May 16, 2014.