United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of D.V., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, TRAVIS 

AIR FORCE BASE, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0402 

Issued: June 22, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M . Goodkin, 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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $2,665.50.1 The Board 

notes that all petitions for approval of fees for representative’s services performed before the 

Board 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 regulations, the Board considered 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 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 attorney with the client, the factual evidence and legal argument offered by the attorney and 

written pleadings filed in the case. The Board will also consider the usefulness of an attorney’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 regulation, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition.9

 Appellant provided a 

signed statement indicating that the requested fee of $2,665.50 was reasonable and appropriate 

and expressed her understanding that she was responsible for payment of the fee. 

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. The underlying issue was whether appellant had established an employmentrelated disability on or after April 4, 1993. By decision dated December 3, 2013, OWCP denied 

the claim for wage-loss compensation from April 4, 1993. An OWCP hearing representative 

affirmed the December 3, 2013 decision on November 14, 2014. By decision dated June 9, 

2015, the Board affirmed the November 14, 2014 decision. Counsel filed a petition for 

reconsideration with the Board on June 23, 2015. The Board denied the petition for 

reconsideration by order dated December 7, 2015. 

On appeal counsel submitted an eight-page brief arguing that the report of the impartial 

medical specialist, Dr. John Sampson, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, was internally 

inconsistent with respect to diagnostic studies and not sufficient to constitute the weight of the 

medical evidence. He reviewed the report in detail with respect to the issue presented and the 

medical history. 

On January 11, 2016 counsel provided a fee petition and a statement of service requesting 

approval of fees totaling $2,665.50. The fee petition application documents 7.30 hours spent in 

connection with the appeal before the Board. The fee petition describes the specific tasks carried 

out by counsel and two paralegals, as well as the amount of time each task required. It also 

documents the customary local charges for similar services of counsel and the paralegal as 

$425.00 and $195.00 per hour, respectively. 

 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 attorney must establish the complex or 

unusual nature of the appeal. 

6

 The Board’s consideration of the “capacity” in which an attorney appears includes, but is not limited to, whether 

the attorney obtained a written retainer and fee agreement. 

7

 The Board’s evaluation of an attorney’s 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 counsel 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 attorneys often have clients in several states 

and that local custom must be balanced against national practice in the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

appeals. 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 
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 regulation. Counsel provided a detailed brief 

which aided the Board in its consideration of the issue on appeal, and provided an appropriate 

itemized statement of the services performed with respect to the appeal. 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 a fine or imprisonment for up to a year or both. 

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

$2,665.50.10

Issued: June 22, 2017 

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 

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

Board effective November 16, 2015.