United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of L.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 

Raymond, MT, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1020 

Issued: August 22, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Timothy Quinn, 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 $1,545.00.1 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 considered 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 the 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. 

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. The Board issued its decision on July 9, 2015. The underlying issue was a 

claim for wage-loss compensation dating back to September 18, 2004.10 The Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs (OWCP) accepted appellant’s traumatic injury claim for permanent 

aggravation of right hip osteoarthritis, and granted a schedule award for 50 percent impairment 

of the right lower extremity. But with respect to entitlement to wage-loss compensation, OWCP 

denied benefits finding that appellant, although unable to perform his date-of-injury job, was not 

totally disabled from all employment. OWCP further found that the employing establishment 

had accommodated appellant’s work restrictions prior to his September 2004 resignation, and 

that he effectively abandoned employment. Consequently, OWCP denied wage-loss 

compensation beginning September 18, 2004. On appeal, the Board set aside OWCP’s March 4, 

2014 decision, and remanded the case for further factual and medical development. 

Counsel appealed the March 4, 2014 decision on March 31, 2014, and as noted the Board 

issued its decision remanding the case on July 9, 2015. The fee petition requests approval of 

time from March 8 through May 5, 2014, and documents 10.30 hours spent in connection with 

this appeal before the Board at $150.00 per hour for Timothy Quinn, Esq. During the abovenoted timeframe, counsel prepared and submitted an initial brief and a supplemental brief for the 

Board. Of the total hours claimed, 8.3 hours were associated with the preparation and 

submission of briefs. Counsel represented that his $150.00 hourly fee was below the local 

market (Denver, CO) rate for similarly experienced attorneys appearing before the Board. 

 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 Appellant last worked for the employing establishment on August 25, 2004, but remained in pay status through 

September 17, 2004. The Social Security Administration (SSA) awarded appellant disability benefits due to severe 

hip joint arthritis and migraine headaches. According to SSA, appellant was disabled as of September 18, 2004. 
3

Regarding the complexity of the case, counsel noted that the appeal involved a number of issues, 

which was reflected in the briefs filed and the Board’s July 9, 2015 decision. Lastly, with 

respect to the usefulness of counsel’s services, he noted that appellant prevailed before the Board 

and ultimately on remand before OWCP.11 

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition, and finds 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 

$1,545.00. 

Issued: August 22, 2016 

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 

 11 The record indicates that OWCP has since awarded wage-loss compensation dating back to September 18, 

2004, which included a March 11, 2016 payment in excess of $275,000.00.