United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of L.A., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

SHIPYARD, Philadelphia, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1138 

Issued: January 11, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Jeffrey P. Zeelander, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $5,880.00.1 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.10

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. By decision dated September 9, 2014, the Board reversed OWCP’s 

December 23, 2013 decision, which terminated appellant’s compensation benefits effective 

January 12, 2014. 

On appeal counsel had submitted a six-page letter addressing the factual history of the 

case and arguing that the medical opinion of an OWCP referral physician was not entitled to the 

weight of the medical evidence as the statement of accepted facts (SOAF) provided to him 

contained an inaccurate summary of appellant’s accepted conditions and he incorrectly stated 

that specific diagnostic testing had not been performed. He also argued that appellant’s claim 

should have been accepted for an aggravation of degenerative disc disease based on an impartial 

medical examiner’s medical report. Lastly, counsel argued that the record was incomplete as it 

did not contain a SOAF prepared prior to 1998 which was referenced by numerous referral 

physicians. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated December 23, 2013 and the appeal and supporting 

letter were filed with the Board on April 14, 2014. The fee petition requests approval of time 

from April 28 through September 11, 2014 and documents 14.7 hours spent in connection with 

this appeal before the Board at $400.00 per hour for counsel a total of $5,880.00. 

                                                             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). 

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

that he agreed with the requested fee. 
3

The Board notes that it is difficult to ascertain the services for which fees are being 

charged when the document presented for approval includes fees for services before both OWCP 

and the Board. It is requested that only the fees charged for work before the Board be included 

in the request to be approved by the Board. The Board strongly discourages counsel from 

submitting petitions with redactions, corrections, or additions because the Board is without 

knowledge of who made the changes or why they were made.11

As to the time spent and usefulness of the representation, the Board recognizes that 

counsel’s pleading consists merely of a compilation of documents photocopied from the record 

and pasted into the document, with short explanatory paragraphs. Although counsel’s itemized 

statement of fees indicates that a large amount of research was performed, his pleading did not 

advance any legal arguments, nor did it include any citations to Board case law. The Board finds 

that counsel in this instance has failed to establish adequate justification for the full amount of 

his fee based on the amount of time spent, and the usefulness of the representation and the 

complexity of this case. 

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition and finds it fails to satisfy the 

requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s implementing regulations, to the extent noted 

above. As such, the Board will approve a fee of $4,520.00 in this matter. This amount 

represents approval of 11.3 hours at $400.00 per hour.12

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. 

                                                             11 In fact, the fee petition submitted to the Board for approval also included $4,000.00 in additional itemized fees 

for work performed before OWCP. 

12 This reduces the time allowed for preparation of the brief by 3.4 hours. 
4

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

$4,520.00. 

Issued: January 11, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board