United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of K.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, FORT 

LEONARD WOOD, Nixa, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 14-1560

Issued: April 19, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of four thousand, two hundred, 

and twenty eight dollars ($4,228.00).

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

 

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).
2

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

criteria:

(1) The usefulness of the Representative’s services;4

(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 No response was 

received.10

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

appeal. The underlying issue was whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish an 

April 13, 2013 claim for benefits based on an emotional condition. By decision dated May 22, 

2014 OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she failed to establish any compensable factor 

of employment and thus fact of injury was not established. On appeal counsel submitted a sevenpage brief presenting the facts and Board precedent in similar cases. He argued that appellant had 

provided sufficient factual evidence to establish compensable factors of employment including 

overwork, air travel, and exposure to heat. By order dated December 21, 2015, the Board set aside 

the May 22, 2014 decision, finding that it did not contain adequate findings of fact. The Board 

remanded the case for a proper decision including findings of fact and a clear, precise statement 

regarding the basis for the decision.11 

 

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.

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).

10 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. 

11 Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 14-1560 (issued December 21, 2015).
3

Counsel provided a fee petition and statement of service before the Board. OWCP’s

decision on appeal was dated May 22, 2014 and the appeal was filed on July 8, 2014. The Board 

issued its order remanding case on December 21, 2015. The fee petition requests approval of time 

from June 19, 2014 through August 14, 2015 and documents 10.50 hours spent in connection with 

this appeal before the Board, including 7.10 hours at $425.00 per hour for Daniel M. Goodkin, 

Esq., for a total of $3,017.50; .30 hours at $525.00 per hour for Steven E. Brown, Esq., for a total 

of $525.00; and 5.40 hours at $195.00 per hour Paralegal Erika Bauer, for a total of $1,053.00.

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. The Board concludes that the fee 

requested 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.”

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

$4,228.00.12 

Issued: April 19, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

12 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the preparation of the original order, but was no longer a member of 

the Board effective December 11, 2017.