United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of L.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MEAT & 

POULTRY INSPECTION SERVICE, 

Philadelphia, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1952 

Issued: November 1, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,491.00.1 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 must consider 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 

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. The underlying issue was whether appellant met her burden of proof to 

establish that her claim should be expanded to include the additional conditions. By decision 

dated September 16, 2015, the Board affirmed the denial of appellant’s request to expand her 

claim to include additional conditions. 

On October 19, 2015 counsel provided a fee petition and statement of services requesting 

approval of fees totaling $1,491.00. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated August 4, 2014 and the appeal was filed with the 

Board on September 9, 2014. The Board issued its decision on September 16, 2015. The fee 

petition requests approval of services for September 3, 2014 and documents 3.60 hours spent in 

connection with the appeal before the Board at $425.00 an hour for 3 hours for Daniel M. 

Goodkin, Esq., $525.00 per hour for .30 hours for Steven E. Brown, Esq., and $195.00 per hour 

for .30 hours for Paralegal Jessica Pope. The fee petition described the specific services 

provided for the amount claimed. 

The Board has carefully 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.” 

 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). The Board notes that included with the representative’s fee petition was a signed 

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

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

$1,491.00.10

Issued: November 1, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 10 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective November 16, 2015 and did not participate in the preparation of this order.