United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of T.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

GREATER LOS ANGELES HEALTH CARE 

SYSTEM, Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-1164

Issued: September 19, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M . Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,398.50.

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 Act,2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

Pursuant to its regulation, the Board considered the fee petition under the following criteria:

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

 

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).

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 
2

(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 No response was 

received.10

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

appeal. By decision dated December 1, 2015, the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP) found that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish a compensable 

employment factor of excessive work load or that such work load was the cause of appellant’s 

emotional or cardiac conditions. By decision dated February 24, 2017, the Board affirmed the 

December 23, 2015 decision of OWCP. With respect to the claimed emotional and cardiac

conditions, the Board found that appellant voluntarily engaged in nonmandatory overtime work

and did not establish any of the claimed work factors which he believed caused him to develop an 

emotional condition.

On appeal counsel submitted a four-page brief, which addresses the factual history of the 

case and presents Board precedent regarding the establishment of work-related cardiac and 

emotional conditions. He argued that working overtime, even voluntarily, constitutes a 

compensable factor of employment. Counsel also argued, with respect to the claimed emotional 

and cardiac conditions, that the medical evidence of record establishes that the overtime work 

 

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 representative’s fee petition was a signed statement from appellant 

indicating that the requested fee of $1,516.00 was reasonable and appropriate. Appellant expressed his understanding 

that he was responsible for payment of the fee.
3

hours contributed and worsened the conditions. He requested that appellant’s claim be accepted 

for the claimed orthopedic and emotional conditions.

By letter dated March 6, 2017, counsel provided a fee petition and a statement of service 

requesting approval of fees totaling $1,398.50.

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated December 1, 2015 and the appeal was filed with 

the Board on May 13, 2016. The fee petition requests approval of time from May 12, 2016 to 

June 1, 2016 and documents 4.3 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the Board at 

$475.00 per hour for 2.0 hours for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., and $195.00 per hour for 2.3 hours 

for Paralegal Erika Bauer. The fee petition described the specific services provided for the amount 

claimed.

The Board has carefully 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 

$1,516.00.11

Issued: September 19, 2019

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

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

effective December 11, 2017.