United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of H.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST 

SERVICE, SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST, 

Cuba, NM, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 16-0937

Issued: December 7, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $503.00.

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

Pursuant to its regulations, the Board considers fee petitions under the following general 

criteria:

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

 

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).

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.
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;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 a claim for the permanent partial impairment 

appellant’s lower extremities. By decisions dated March 14 and 16, 2016, OWCP granted 

appellant schedule awards for three percent permanent impairment of each of his legs. The 

Board affirmed the March 14 and 16, 2016 OWCP decisions.

On appeal, counsel submitted a two-page brief presenting a factual pattern and Board 

precedent in similar cases. He argued that Board precedent supported finding that appellant had

more than three percent permanent impairment of his lower extremities.

OWCP’s decisions on appeal were dated March 14 and 16, 2016 and the appeal was filed 

with the Board on April 4, 2016. The fee petition requests approval of time on April 4, 2016 and 

documents 1.4 hours spent in connection with this appeal before the Board at $425.00 per hour 

for one hour for Daniel M. Goodkin, Esquire, and $195.00 per hour and $78.00 for 0.40 hours

for Paralegal Erika Bauer.

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.

 

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 he found the requested fee to be reasonable and appropriate.
3

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

$503.00.

Issued: December 7, 2017

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board