United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of P.D., Appellant 

and 

BUREAU OF PRISIONS, TERMINAL ISLAND 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, San Diego, CA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 11-1804 

Issued: August 26, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Steven E. Brown, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S FEE 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

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

thousand, one hundred, nineteen dollars and fifty cents ($1,119.50).1

 By order dated April 2, 

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

of supplementary information to review the request under the Board’s regulations at 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9. 

In this appeal, the Board’s June 6, 2012 decision found the case not in posture for 

decision. The January 27 and June 15, 2011 the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ 

(OWCP) decisions were remanded for further medical development. 

On May 14, 2014 counsel responded to the Board’s April 2, 2014 order, providing 

supplemental information for consideration of the fee request pursuant to section 501.9(e).2 He 

 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

 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 
2

noted that appellant did not contest the reasonableness of the fee.3

 Regarding the usefulness of 

the representative’s services, counsel stated that the issue was whether the medical evidence at 

least supported causal relationship enough to require further development of the claim. The 

Board notes that counsel’s initial six-page pleading in the appeal cited pertinent case law in 

support of his arguments. 

Counsel noted that the time spent on the appeal was documented and addressed the 

customary local charges for similar services. He specifically addressed the 3.1 hours of service 

and charges by the staff of his law firm in this appeal from July 22, 2011 through 

August 22, 2012. The legal work outlined and accompanying billing entries for the pleading 

preparation, client contact appear to be reasonable in the context of the subject matter of the 

appeal. 

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and additional information submitted by counsel 

and finds that it satisfies the requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s implementing 

federal regulations. 

ORDER 

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

thousand, one hundred and nineteen dollars and fifty cents ($1,119.50).4

Issued: August 26, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 3

 Counsel cited to the provisions of the Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Representatives’ 

Services, Chapter 2.1200.6 (June 2012) and inquired as to whether they pertain to uncontested fees for work 

performed before the Board. 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). 

4

 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.