United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of J.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Wilmington, DE, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 15-0872

Issued: December 8, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, 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

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $594.00.1 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;7and

(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 issues were whether the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP) met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits effective April 6, 2014 and whether appellant established any continuing 

employment-related disability after April 6, 2014. By decision dated September 28, 2016, the 

Board reversed the October 6 and December 15, 2014 decisions of OWCP. The Board found 

that OWCP failed to meet its burden to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits effective April 6, 2014 due to an unresolved conflict in the medical evidence. 

The Board further determined that in light of the disposition of the first issue, the second issue 

was moot.

OWCP’s decisions were dated October 6 and December 15, 2014 and the appeal was 

filed with the Board on March 9, 2015 and the eight-page brief was filed with the Board on 

March 16, 2015. On March 7, 2017 counsel provided a fee petition requesting approval of fees 

totaling $594.00. The fee petition requests a fee for 1.50 hours of legal services by Thomas R.

Uliase, Esquire, at an hourly rate of $350.00 for the preparation of a brief and memorandum to 

file on March 3, 2015 for a total of $525.00. The fee petition also requests fees for .92 hours of 

secretarial services by Cherryl A. Leonardo at an hourly rate of $75.00 on March 11 and 16, 

2015 for preparation of brief and correspondence to the Board for a total of $69.00.

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.

 

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 he agreed with the requested fee for services rendered.
3

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 that the fee petition is granted in the amount of

$594.00. 

Issued: December 8, 2017

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