20 C.F.R. § 802.203

Fees for services

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

(a) No fee for services rendered on behalf of a claimant in the successful pursuit or successful defense of an appeal shall be valid unless approved pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 928, as amended.

(b) All fees for services rendered in the successful pursuit or successful defense of an appeal on behalf of a claimant shall be subject to the provisions and prohibitions contained in 33 U.S.C. 928, as amended.

(c) Within 60 days of the issuance of a decision or non-interlocutory order by the Board, counsel or, where appropriate, representative for any claimant who has prevailed on appeal before the Board may file an application with the Board for a fee. Where the Board remands the case and the administrative law judge on remand issues an award, a fee petition may be filed within 60 days of the decision on remand. In the event that a claimant who was unsuccessful before the Board prevails on appeal to the court of appeals, his or her representative may within 60 days of issuance of the court's judgment file a fee application with the Board for services performed before the Board.

(d) A fee application shall include only time spent on services performed while the appeal was pending before the Board and shall be complete in all respects, containing all of the following specific information:

(1) A complete statement of the extent and character of the necessary work done;

(2) The professional status of each person for whom a fee is claimed who performed services on behalf of the claimant (if such professional status is other than attorney, a definition of the professional status of such individual must be included in the fee petition, including a statment of that individual's professional training, education and experience) and a statement that the attorney was a member in good standing of a state bar at the time the services were performed;

(3) The number of hours, in 1/4 hour increments, devoted by each person who performed services on behalf of the claimant and the dates on which such services were performed in each category of work;

(4) The normal billing rate for each person who performed services on behalf of the claimant. The rate awarded by the Board shall be based on what is reasonable and customary in the area where the services were rendered for a person of that particular professional status.

(e) Any fee approved shall be reasonably commensurate with the necessary work done and shall take into account the quality of the representation, the complexity of the legal issues involved, the amount of benefits awarded, and, when the fee is to be assessed against the claimant, shall also take into account the financial circumstances of the claimant. A fee shall not necessarily be computed by multiplying time devoted to work by an hourly rate.

(f) No contract pertaining to the amount of a fee shall be recognized.

(g) A fee application shall be served on all other parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. The Board will not take action on the fee application until such service is effected. Any party may respond to the application within 10 days of receipt of the application. The response shall be filed with the Board and served on all other parties.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases, 1975–2015 · leading case: Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 557 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 557 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 8× “On November 17, 2006, the BRB issued an order denying Robinowitz’s Motion for Reconsideration, rejecting counsel’s assertions and finding that the fee awarded was in compliance with 20 C.F.R. § 802.203 (d)(4). Price, Appeal No.”

E. Associated Coal Corp. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 724 F.3d 561 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 7× “§ 928 (e); see also 20 C.F.R. § 802.203 (f); Triplett, 494 U.”

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Holiday, 591 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “” 9 20 C.F.R. § 802.203 (d)(4). In the usual case, we have said that an attorney identifies the appropriate hourly rate by demonstrating what similarly situated lawyers would have been able to charge for the same service.”

B & G Mining, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 522 F.3d 657 (6th Cir. 2008). “20 C.F.R. § 802.203 (d)(3). While attorneys who record their time in quarter-hour increments might overbill their clients, attorneys who bill in tenth-hour increments might also overbill—the risk exists under both methods.”

Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 542 F.2d 602 (3rd Cir. 1976). “The award of fees at the administrative agency level is governed by 20 C.F.R. §§ 802.203 , 702.134 (1975). See Matthews v.”

Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States, 473 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2007). “The regulations further mandate that fee applications submitted to the BRB shall contain "[a] complete statement of the extent and character of the necessary work done” and "[t]he number of hours, in 1/4 hour increments, devoted by each person who performed services on behalf of…”

Shirrod v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 809 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2015). “2009) (noting that the “relevant community” *1088 should “turn[ ] on inquiries about the lawyer and client”); 20 C.F.R. § 802.203 (d)(4) (“The rate awarded by the [BRB] shall be based on what is reasonable and customary in the area where the services were rendered for a person…”

Conoco, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Worker's Comp. Programs, 194 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 1999). “See 20 C.F.R. § 802.203 (d)(3). This court, in two unpublished opinions, however, refused to interpret the regulation to authorize “rounding-up” to quarter-hour increments for work that was actually performed in a shorter period of time.”

Potter v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 10 F. Supp. 3d 737 (E.D. Mich. 2014). “3d at 666 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 802.203 (d)(3)). . Although Northcross involves § 1988, not ERISA, "[t]he language of [ 42 U.”

Avery C. Bennett v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 717 F.2d 1167 (7th Cir. 1983). “He also argues that such claimants often will be proceeding pro se on appeal to the BRB, because attorney’s fees are reimbursed only if the appeal is successful.”

Matthews v. Walter, 512 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “928 as amended and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the respective Acts (see §§ 702.”

Holliday v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 654 F.2d 415 (5th Cir. 1981). “See 20 C.F.R. § 802.203 (1980); Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— 20 C.F.R. § 802.203(d)(3) — 1 case

McGinnis, Inc. v. Martin, 25 F. App'x 297 (6th Cir. 2001).

— 20 C.F.R. § 802.203(d)(4) — 1 case

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Holiday, 591 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2009). “” 9 20 C.F.R. § 802.203 (d)(4). In the usual case, we have said that an attorney identifies the appropriate hourly rate by demonstrating what similarly situated lawyers would have been able to charge for the same service.”

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.