20 C.F.R. § 725.366

Fees for representatives

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A representative seeking a fee for services performed on behalf of a claimant shall make application therefor to the district director, administrative law judge, or appropriate appellate tribunal, as the case may be, before whom the services were performed. The application shall be filed and served upon the claimant and all other parties within the time limits allowed by the district director, administrative law judge, or appropriate appellate tribunal. The application shall be supported by a complete statement of the extent and character of the necessary work done, and shall indicate the professional status (e.g., attorney, paralegal, law clerk, lay representative or clerical) of the person performing such work, and the customary billing rate for each such person. The application shall also include a listing of reasonable unreimbursed expenses, including those for travel, incurred by the representative or an employee of a representative in establishing the claimant's case. Any fee requested under this paragraph shall also contain a description of any fee requested, charged, or received for services rendered to the claimant before any State or Federal court or agency in connection with a related matter.

(b) Any fee approved under paragraph (a) of this section shall be reasonably commensurate with the necessary work done and shall take into account the quality of the representation, the qualifications of the representative, the complexity of the legal issues involved, the level of proceedings to which the claim was raised, the level at which the representative entered the proceedings, and any other information which may be relevant to the amount of fee requested. No fee approved shall include payment for time spent in preparation of a fee application. No fee shall be approved for work done on claims filed between December 30, 1969, and June 30, 1973, under part B of title IV of the Act, except for services rendered on behalf of the claimant in regard to the review of the claim under section 435 of the Act and part 727 of this subchapter (see § 725.4(d)).

(c) In awarding a fee, the appropriate adjudication officer shall consider, and shall add to the fee, the amount of reasonable and unreimbursed expenses incurred in establishing the claimant's case. Reimbursement for travel expenses incurred by an attorney shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of § 725.459(a). No reimbursement shall be permitted for expenses incurred in obtaining medical or other evidence which has previously been submitted to the Office in connection with the claim.

(d) Upon receipt of a request for approval of a fee, such request shall be reviewed and evaluated by the appropriate adjudication officer and a fee award issued. Any party may request reconsideration of a fee awarded by the adjudication officer. A revised or modified fee award may then be issued, if appropriate.

(e) Each request for reconsideration or review of a fee award shall be in writing and shall contain supporting statements or information pertinent to any increase or decrease requested. If a fee awarded by a district director is disputed, such award shall be appealable directly to the Benefits Review Board. In such a fee dispute case, the record before the Board shall consist of the order of the district director awarding or denying the fee, the application for a fee, any written statement in opposition to the fee and the documentary evidence contained in the file which verifies or refutes any item claimed in the fee application.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Triplett
Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Triplett (1988) wva · cites it 9× “20 C.F.R. § 725.366 provides in part: A representative seeking a fee for services performed on behalf of a claimant shall make application therefor to the deputy commissioner, administrative law judge, or appropriate appellate tribunal, as the case may be, before whom the…”
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Albert Brodka (1981) ca3 · cites it 4× “2 On September 4, 1979, pursuant to the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 725.366 (a) (1980), Brodka’s attorney filed a fee petition for $736.”
United States Department of Labor v. Triplett (1990) scotus · cites it 2× “§ 928 (a), the attorney may apply to each tribunal before whom the services were performed, 20 CFR § 725.366 (a) (1989), and shall be awarded a fee "reasonably commensurate with the necessary work done," § 725.”
Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (2013) ca4 · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 725.366 (b). Thus, we also consider these factors in conjunction with the lodestar methodology.”
B & G Mining, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (2008) ca6 “Specifically, 20 C.F.R. § 725.366 provides in relevant part: (b) Any fee .”
Lance Coal Corp. v. Phillip Caudill (2016) ca6 · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 725.366 (b); see also B & G Mining, 522 F.”
Zeigler Coal Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, and Willi (2003) ca7 “See 20 C.F.R. § 725.366 (b). Zeigler offered no evidence to support its contention that the rates charged are improper or unreasonably high.”
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Swiger (2004) ca4 · cites it 2× “, applied for attorney’s fees pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.366 and requested a rate of $225.”
Charles R. Kerns v. Consolidation Coal Company Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Departm (1999) ca4 · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 725.366 (a); Department of Labor v.”
Orville Bankes v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Benefits Review Board (1985) ca6 · cites it 2× “On April 1, 1982, the deputy commissioner informed Dodd that pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 725.366(a), his fee application would not be considered because it had not been received within 30 days of the letter of November 14, 1980.”
National Mining Ass'n v. Chao (2001) dcd “20 C.F.R. § 725.366 : This rule provides the procedure for collecting attorney’s fees which are permitted when they are “reasonably commensurate” with work performed.”
Amax Coal Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, and Jack Chu (2002) ca7 “20 C.F.R. § 725.366 . Additionally, “the rate chargeable against the mine operator must be market-based .”
— 20 C.F.R. § 725.366(a) — 2 cases
Orville Bankes v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Benefits Review Board (1985) ca6 “On April 1, 1982, the deputy commissioner informed Dodd that pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 725.366(a), his fee application would not be considered because it had not been received within 30 days of the letter of November 14, 1980.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 725.366(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.