Section 501.9 (e): Comment from James Linehan, James R. Linehan PC

Re: part(e) Fees for Attorney, Representative, or Other Services. No claim for a fee for legal or other service in connection with a proceeding before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. This is nonsensical. Every OWCP claim, by legal right of appeal has some "connection with a proceeding before the Board." Does this mean that the representative in every OWCP must submit his fee request to the Board? Example: Claimant has OWCP claim dating form 1980. It is denied in 1990 by the OWCP. The Board overrules and remands the claim back to OWCP in 2000. The claimant hires a representative in 2005 to work the ongoing OWCP claim on remand. The ongoing OWCP claim still is a "proceeding" that has a "connection" with the Board, from 15 years earlier. Does that mean the representative must submit his fee request for the OWCP claim to the Board? Next: re: "No fee for service will be approved except upon written application to the Clerk, supported by a statement of the extent and nature of the necessary work performed before the Board on behalf of the Appellant. The fee application will be served by the Clerk on the Appellant and a time set in which a response may be filed. Except where such fee is de minimis, the fee request will be evaluated with consideration of the following factors: (1) Usefulness of the Representative's services; (2) The nature and complexity of the appeal; (3) The capacity in which the Representative has appeared; (4) The actual time spent in connection with the Board appeal; and (5) Customary local charges for similar services." This is outdated and discriminatory against a class of federal employees. What does "de minimis" mean? A set hourly rate? A set fee? A set contingency? The Board should recognize the United States" and Executive Office's recent action on this very same point in Veterans Claims and appeals: 38 U.S.C.S. § 5904. Therein the United States has recognized that a 20% contingency fee is a reasonable and fair "de minimis" fee for the representation of United States veterans on their disability claims and appeals. As such the United States finds that such a fee agreement is automatically approved and fees are then paid directly to the representative by the United States from the veteran's award. This Board should recognize and defer to those findings of the United States and Executive office that the Board would be better served reviewing appeals and issuing orders, rather than wasting its time, the claimants and their representative's time, reviewing and interfering with otherwise private fee agreements. the Board's current policy is discriminatory on its face to federal employees (of whom many are US Veterans) in setting forth different fee review policies when such claims (OWCP and VA) often directly overlap and intertwine.