United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

St. Petersburg, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1101

Issued: March 30, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

C.B. Weiser, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $658.22.

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

Under these regulations, the Board must consider the petition under the following general 

criteria:

(1) The usefulness of the Representative’s services;4

1 FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)), and its implementing regulation (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 above-referenced 

appeal. The underlying issues were: (1) whether the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

properly determined that appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of 

$120,114.57 for the period November 1, 2001 through March 4, 2017; (2) whether OWCP 

properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment; and (3) whether OWCP properly required 

recovery of the overpayment by deducting $950.00 every 28 days from appellant’s continuing 

compensation.

On appeal, counsel submitted a three-page brief presenting the facts and Board precedent 

in similar cases. By decision dated January 17, 2019, the Board affirmed OWCP’s November 13, 

2017 decision, finding that: (1) appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the amount 

of $120,114.57; (2) OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment; and 

(3) OWCP properly required recovery of the overpayment by deducting $950.00 every 28 days

from her continuing compensation payments.

On February 1, 2019 counsel provided a fee petition and statement of services performed

before the Board, requesting approval of fees totaling $658.22. The fee petition requests approval 

of services from December 27, 2017 through February 1, 2019and documents 3.2 total hours spent 

in connection with this appeal before the Board at $200.00 per hour. The fee petition described 

the specific services provided for the amount claimed.

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.

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 f ee 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

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition, and finds that it satisfies the 

requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure.

10

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. ”

11

 Under 

18 U.S.C. § 292, collecting a fee without the approval of the Board may constitute a misdemeanor, 

subject to fine or imprisonment up to one year, or both.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition is granted in the amount of $658.22.

Issued: March 30, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

10 Supra note 3.

11 Id.