United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of D.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, THOUSAND OAKS

POST OFFICE, San Antonio, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1255

Issued: July 25, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Andrew Douglas, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $367.50.

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 Act2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

Pursuant to its regulation, the Board considers the fee petition 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 On June 12, 2019 the 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards received a signed statement dated May 3, 2019, in which appellant 

indicated that the requested fee of $367.50 was reasonable and appropriate. Appellant expressed 

his understanding that he was responsible for payment of the fee.

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the above-referenced 

appeal. The underlying issue on appeal is whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation, effective May 8, 2017, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a),

based on appellant’s failure to accept a temporary limited-duty assignment. In a January 8, 2018 

decision, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s May 8, 2017 termination of wageloss compensation benefits. By decision dated April 5, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its 

January 8, 2018 decision.

On appeal counsel submitted a 10-page brief addressing the issue on appeal and citing to

Board precedent in similar cases. He argued that the modified city carrier position offered to 

appellant was not suitable, even if the employing establishment used the work restrictions provided 

by the second opinion examiner.

On May 6, 2019 counsel provided a fee petition and statement of services requesting 

approval of fees totaling $367.50.

The fee petition requests approval of services for $367.50 at $250.00 per hour for Andrew 

Douglas, Esq., and documents 1.47 hours spent in connection with the Board appeal in Docket No.

19-1255. The fee petition describes 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 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). The Board notes that included with the representative’s fee petition was a signed statement 

from appellant indicating that he agreed with the requested fee for services rendered.
3

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds that 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 

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

subject to fine or imprisonment for up to a year or both.”

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition is granted in the amount of $367.50.

Issued: July 25, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board