United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

IN THE MATTER OF W.W., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 

Lee’s Summit, MO, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1130 

Issued: November 7, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,335.50.1 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 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 considers fee petitions 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 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 a claim for compensation for a traumatic injury on 

October 15, 2012. By decision dated March 19, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding 

that she had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between 

her conditions and the incident of October 15, 2012. The Board set aside the March 19, 2015 

OWCP decision and remanded the case for further development of the medical evidence. 

On appeal, counsel submitted a four-page brief presenting a factual pattern and Board 

precedent in similar cases. He argued that Board precedent supported finding that appellant had 

established a causal relationship between her aggravated condition and the incident of 

October 15, 2012. 

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated March 19, 2015 and the appeal was filed with the 

Board on April 27, 2015. The fee petition requests approval of time from March 27, 2015 

through August 10, 2015, and documents 3.9 hours spent in connection with this appeal before 

the Board at $425.00 per hour for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esquire, and $195.00 per hour for 

Paralegal Erika Bauer. 

The Board has carefully reviewed the fee petition and finds it, as modified, otherwise 

satisfies the requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s implementing regulations. 

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 

                                                             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 counsel’s fee petition was a signed statement from 

appellant indicating that she found the requested fee to be reasonable and appropriate. 
3

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 

$1,335.50. 

Issued: November 7, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board