United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of K.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Seattle, WA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-1392

Issued: December 15, 2017

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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $2,493.50.

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

 

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 considers fee petitions under the following general 

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 

The requested fees pertain to services performed before the Board in the abovereferenced appeal. The underlying issue was whether OWCP properly refused to reopen 

appellant’s case for further review of the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). By decision 

dated April 18, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a merit review. The Board set aside 

the April 18, 2016 OWCP nonmerit decision because a delay in issuing a decision on appellant’s 

reconsideration request effectively precluded her from appealing the most recent merit decision 

to the Board.

On appeal, counsel submitted a seven-page brief presenting the facts and Board precedent 

in similar cases. He argued that Board precedent supported finding that OWCP erred in denying 

her a merit review as new and relevant medical evidence and argument had been submitted. 

Counsel also contended that OWCP provided conflicting findings in its last merit decision and 

the nonmerit decision currently on appeal to the Board.

 

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). 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.
3

OWCP’s decision on appeal was dated April 18, 2016 and the appeal was filed with the 

Board on June 23, 2016. The fee petition requests approval of time from May 5 through 

December 5, 2016, and documents 6.90 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the 

Board at $475.00 per hour for 4.10 hours for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esquire for a total of 

$1,947.50, and $195.00 per hour for 2.80 hours for Paralegal Erika Bauer for a total of $546.00.

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 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 

$2,493.50.

10

Issued: December 15, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

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

Board effective December 11, 2017.