5 U.S.C. § 8127
Representation; attorneys’ fees
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| 5 U.S.C. 773(b) (less last sentence). | Oct. 14, 1949, ch. 691, § 208 “Sec. 23(b) (less last sentence)”, 63 Stat. 865. |
Administration of this subchapter was transferred to the Secretary of Labor by section 1 of 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 19, 64 Stat. 1271 (see section 8145).
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Carlton L. Owens v. William Brock, Sec'y of Labor, 860 F.2d 1363 (6th Cir. 1988).
Carlton L. Owens v. William Brock, Sec'y of Labor, 860 F.2d 1363 (6th Cir. 1988). “The attorney fees involved there had been awarded under 5 U.S.C. § 8127 (b), which is a fee approval provision, as opposed to the EAJA, which is a fee shifting statute.”
Nazareth Gates v. John Collier, Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, 616 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir. 1980). “1977); Workmen’s Compensation Acts § 208, 5 U.S.C. § 8127 (b) (1970); Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 § 106, 7 U.”
Kelvin Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Emp. Servs., 111 A.3d 9 (D.C. 2015). “5 U.S.C. § 8127 (b); Owens v. Brock, 860 F.”
Ramos v. Lamm, 539 F. Supp. 730 (D. Colo. 1982). “§ 1818 (n) Federal Employment Compensation for Work Injuries, 5 U.S.C. § 8127 *756 Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, 30 U.”
Coulter v. Tennessee, 805 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1986). “§ 1818 (n) Federal Employment Compensation for Work Injuries, 5 U.S.C. § 8127 Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, 30 U.”
Hamby v. Holcombe, 630 F. Supp. 199 (N.D. Ala. 1986). “In particular each case seeks judicial review of an award of attorney’s fees made to the plaintiff attorneys under 5 U.S.C. § 8127 (b) 1 for representing a FECA claimant as that term is defined in 5 U.”
In Re Cruse, 705 S.E.2d 664 (Ga. 2011). “Thereafter, the client sued Cruse in the Magistrate Court of Richmond County to recover the $4,000 fee and on January 11, 2007, the court entered judgment against Cruse for $4,000 on the ground that he had not obtained "approval of the fee in question pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8127…”
Sugarman & Sugarman, P.C. v. Shapiro (Mass. App. Ct. 2023). “6 Prior to trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for damages for want of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that, under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, any claim for the legal fees at issue "is valid only if approved by the Secretary [of…”
Keirsey (E.D. Mo. 2026). “See Federal Employee Compensation Act, 5 USC § 8127 (“A claimant may authorize an individual to represent him in any proceeding under this subchapter before the Secretary of Labor.”
Cornelious v. Dist. of Columbia Employees' Comp. Appeals Bd., 704 A.2d 853 (D.C. 1997). “§ 928 (a) (1994) (attorney’s fees under the LHWCA); 5 U.S.C. § 8127 (b) (1994) (attorney’s fees for work injuries for government employees).”
Arriola v. Ins. Co. of North Am., 2 N. Mar. I. Commw. 113 (1985). “*118 Third, the plaintiff claims attorney fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8127 which states that a claimant may authorize an individual to represent the claimant in a proceeding "before the Secretary of Labor" and that any claim for fees is valid ".”
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.