United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

In the Matter of K.S, Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION FACILITY, Denver, CO, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 12-470 

Issued: February 23, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

John S. Evangelisti, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

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

five thousand, one hundred and twenty dollars ($5,120.00).1 By order dated August 25, 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 requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. In its August 4, 2011 decision, the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP) had reduced appellant’s wage-loss compensation based on its finding that she 

had the capacity to earn wages as a cashier. It further denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration on September 12, 2011. The Board, in its September 12, 2012 order remanding 

case, found that the record as submitted to the Board would not permit an informed adjudication 

of the case. The Board remanded the case for OWCP to consolidate the current case record with 

                                                             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 

the records for file numbers xxxxxx355 and xxxxxx783. Following the consolidation of case 

records, OWCP was advised to consider all the evidence and issue an appropriate wage-earning 

capacity decision. The August 4 and September 12, 2011 OWCP decisions were set aside. 

The documents on appeal include a 15-page brief addressing the issues on appeal. 

Counsel cited statutory authority, Board precedent, as well as OWCP’s procedure manual in 

support of his contention that the wage-earning determination was improper. He argued that it 

did not meet the physical restrictions provided for appellant and that OWCP had failed to 

consider other preexisting conditions which limited the use of appellant’s extremities. As noted, 

the Board remanded the case for OWCP to combine the case records from prior work injuries 

and to issue an appropriate decision. 

On September 29, 2014 counsel responded to the Board’s August 25, 2014 order 

providing additional information for consideration of the fee petition pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). He noted that appellant did not contest the amount of the fee and submitted a 

document signed by appellant agreeing to the fees charged. Counsel also noted that fees for 

work performed by OWCP are approved on a consistent basis.2

 He addressed the usefulness of 

the representative services by submitting legal argument in the claim with citation to Board 

precedent that was found relevant to the issue on appeal. Counsel also addressed the time 

submitted in the fee petition 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 reviewed the fee petition and additional information submitted by counsel 

and finds that it satisfies the requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s implementing 

federal regulations. 

 

                                                             2

 20 C.F.R. 10.703(b) and the FECA Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Representatives’ Services, Chapter 

2.1200.6 (June 2012) pertain to uncontested fees for work performed before OWCP. The procedures implemented 

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

20 C.F.R. § 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). 
3 

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

thousand, one hundred and twenty dollars ($5,120.00).3

Issued: February 23, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

                                                             3

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge, participated in the original decision, but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective May 16, 2014.