United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of M.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LOGISTICS & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Kearny, NJ, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Nos. 15-0607 & 

16-1110

Issued: January 7, 2020

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 $1,856.75.1 The petition 

covered services performed from January 16 to 27, 2015 in relation to Docket No. 15-0607 and 

April 11 to May 9, 2016 in relation to Docket No. 16-1110.2 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 Act3(FECA) and under its Rules 

of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).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 The petition included appellant’s December 28, 2017 signed acknowledgement that she reviewed the bill totaling 

$1,856.75. Appellant also indicated that the fee was acceptable and that she was satisfied with the representation 

provided.

3 5 U.S.C. § 8127.

4 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).
2

Pursuant to its regulations, the Board has considered the fee petition under the following 

criteria:

(1) The usefulness of the Representative’s services;5

(2) The nature and complexity of the appeal;6

(3) The capacity in which the Representative has appeared;7

(4) The actual time spent in connection with the Board appeal;8and

(5) Customary local charges for similar services.9

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.10 

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the above-referenced 

appeals. 

With respect to the appeal under Docket No. 15-0607, by decisions dated August 5 and 

November 7, 2014 the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denied appellant’s 

claim. Appellant, through counsel, appealed to the Board on January 27, 2015. On appeal counsel 

submitted a seven-page brief arguing that the medical evidence of record established causal 

relationship. In the alternative, he argued that appellant had at least established a prima facie case

of entitlement to FECA benefits, thereby warranting further medical development by OWCP. In 

his brief, counsel identified various medical reports and diagnostic studies he believed satisfied 

appellant’s burden of proof on causal relationship. By decision dated May 15, 2015, the Board 

affirmed OWCP’s August 5 and November 7, 2014 decisions, finding that appellant had not met

her burden of proof to establish that her cervical, lumbar, and bilateral shoulder conditions were 

causally related to factors of her federal employment.11 Counsel subsequently submitted a fee 

 

5 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.

6 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.

7 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.

8 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).

9 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 FECA appeals.

10 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e); see supra note 2.

11 Docket No. 15-0607 (issued May 15, 2015).
3

petition requesting approval of fees for services performed from January 16 to 27, 2015, 

documenting 3.92 hours spent in connection with this appeal, for a total of $1,187.75. Counsel

billed his services (2.75 hours) at a rate of $400.00 per hour. Additionally, Alisha M. Flynn, a 

paralegal, billed her services (1.17 hours) at $150.00 per hour. A substantial portion of the time 

billed (3.5 hours) was devoted to reviewing and analyzing appellant’s claim file and preparing the 

seven-page brief. 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. Although appellant did 

not prevail on appeal, the Board recognizes both the usefulness of counsel’s services and the nature 

and complexity of the appeal. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the $1,187.75 fee requested 

with respect to Docket No. 15-0607 is reasonable.

With respect to the appeal under Docket No. 16-1110, by decision dated January 25, 2016,

OWCP continued to deny appellant’s occupational disease claim based on her failure to establish 

causal relationship. Appellant, through counsel, appealed to the Board on May 2, 2016. Counsel 

submitted another seven-page brief arguing that medical evidence obtained since OWCP’s prior 

merit decision was sufficient to establish causal relationship. By decision dated November 9, 

2016, the Board set aside OWCP’s last merit decision and remanded the case for further 

development.

12

 Counsel subsequently submitted a fee petition requesting approval of fees in the 

amount of $669.00 for a total of 2.42 hours of services performed from April 11 to May 9, 2016. 

He billed 1.5 hours at a rate of $400.00 per hour, and his assistant, Cherryl A. Leonardo, billed 

0.92 hours at a rate of $75.00 per hour. A substantial portion of the billed time (2 hours) was 

devoted to reviewing and analyzing the case file and preparing the seven-page brief. The Board 

has carefully reviewed the fee petition with respect to Docket No. 16-1110, and finds that it 

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

noteworthy that counsel prevailed on appeal, and on remand OWCP ultimately accepted 

appellant’s occupational disease claim. The Board concludes that the $669.00 fee 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.

 

12 Docket No. 16-1110 (issued November 9, 2016).
4

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

$1,856.75.

13

Issued: January 7, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

13 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the original decisions, but was no longer a member of the Board 

effective December 11, 2017.