United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of R.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

San Leandro, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-272 

Issued: August 25, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Steven E. Brown, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION 

Before: 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Acting Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant filed a request for approval of attorney fees in the amount of one 

thousand, eight hundred, thirty-five dollars and fifty cents ($1,835.50).1

 By order dated April 3, 

2014, the Board denied counsel’s request and allowed an additional 60 days for the submission 

of supplemental material information to review the request under the Board’s regulations at 20 

C.F.R. § 501.9. 

The Board’s May 9, 2013 decision found that appellant did not establish that a 

February 24, 2004 loss of wage-earning capacity determination should be modified. It further 

found that she did not establish a consequential emotional condition causally related to her 

accepted claim of November 5, 1990. 

The documents on appeal include a one-page attachment to appellant’s AB-1 form 

addressing the issues before the Board. Counsel cited to several decisions of the Board in 

support of his contention that the evidence established that appellant’s federal employment 

                                                             1

 The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (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

contributed to her emotional condition.2

 The Board found that appellant did not establish a 

material worsening of her accepted adjustment reaction on or about August 8, 2006. Further, the 

Board determined that the medical evidence submitted in support of her claim of consequential 

emotional conditions did not provide a rationalized opinion explaining causal relationship. 

On April 8, 2014 counsel responded to the Board’s April 3, 2014 order providing 

additional information for consideration of the fee request pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). He 

noted that appellant approved the amount of the fee in full.3 He addressed the usefulness of the 

representative services by noting he submitted legal argument in the claim with citation to Board 

precedent in support of his contention that appellant’s psychological condition had worsened. 

Although this argument was not accepted by the Board, counsel related that, following the 

Board’s May 9, 2013 decision, additional medical evidence was accepted by OWCP that 

established her disability as of 2008. Appellant is in receipt of compensation for total disability 

due to counsel’s effort. Counsel also addressed the time his law firm spent on the case, in 

communication with appellant and addressed the customary local charges for similar services. 

He specifically addressed the hourly rates charged by the staff of his law firm in this appeal. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the petition sufficiently 

documents the work performed on behalf of appellant except to the inclusion of billings on 

February 20 and May 8, 2013. In both instances there were multiple billings by Mr. Goodkin, 

Ms. Bauer and Mr. Brown under the category of “review of file for status meeting” and “office 

meeting for case status.” The amount billed on February 20, 2013 was $190.50 for .6 hours. 

The amount billed on May 8, 2013 was $199.50 for .5 hours. The Board will disallow these 1.1 

hours as excessive and redundant.4

 Deducting $390.00 from the fee petition, the Board finds that 

it otherwise satisfies the requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s implementing federal 

regulations. 

 

                                                             2 See R.L., Docket No. 11-115 (issued June 14, 2011); Beth P. Chaput, 37 ECAB 158 (1985). 

3

 Counsel cited to the provisions of the Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Representatives’ 

Services, Chapter 2.1200.6 (June 2012) and inquired as to whether they pertain to uncontested fees for work 

performed before the Board. The procedures implemented by the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP) with regard to the consideration of fees are separate from the Board’s review of such applications under 

section 501.9(e). OWCP and the Board are two separate and distinct bodies and separate application to the Board is 

required for approval of a fee for legal or other services performed in connection with an appeal. Evelyn R. Adams, 

10 ECAB 585 (1959). 

4

 While not directly pertaining to claims under FECA, the Board finds instructive the decision of the United 

States Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). In any fee petition, counsel must use billing 

judgment and exclude redundant or unnecessary hours and to confirm that the fee requested is not excessive. 

Adequate documentation should be submitted to support the hours of work performed with specificity or a 

reasonably precise description of the work performed on behalf of the client. 
3

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

thousand, four hundred, forty-five dollars and fifty cents ($1,445.50). 

Issued: August 25, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Acting Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board