United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of L.G., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, OFFICE 

OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, DC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0321

Issued: July 25, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Steven E. Brown, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $879.50.1 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 Act2(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 regulation (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

Id. at § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).
2

Pursuant to its regulation, 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;7 and

(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 On November 14, 

2018 she signed a statement of service indicating that she had reviewed counsel’s billing invoice 

and that she agreed that the requested fee of $879.50 was reasonable and appropriate. 

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 that the

acceptance of her claim should be expanded to include additional conditions. By decision dated 

October 25, 2018, the Board affirmed OWCP’s June 6, 2017 denial of appellant’s request to 

expand her claim to include additional conditions. 

On November 26, 2018 counsel provided a fee petition and statement of services 

requesting approval of fees for totaling $879.50.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated June 6, 2017 and the appeal was filed with the 

Board on November 30, 2017. The Board issued its decision on October 25, 2018. The fee 

petition request approval of services performed from November 30, 2017 through November1, 

2018 and documents 3.00 hours spent in connection with the appeal before the Board at $560.00 

an hour for 0.50 hours for Steven E. Brown, Esq.; $475.00 an hour for 0.40 hours for Daniel M. 

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.

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). 
3

Goodkin, Esq.; and $195.00 an hour for 2.10 hours for ParalegalErika Bauer,for a total of $879.50. 

The fee petition described the specific services provided for the amount claimed.

The Board has 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.

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 up to a year or both. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition is granted in the amount of $879.50.

Issued: July 25, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board