BRB No. 93-1414

BARBARA DAVIS                           )
(Widow of HENRY L. DAVIS)               )
                                        )
          Claimant-Respondent           )
                                        )
     v.                                 )
                                        )
INGALLS SHIPBUILDING,                   )
INCORPORATED                            )    DATE ISSUED:   02/26/1996
                                        )
          Self-Insured                  )
          Employer-Petitioner           )     DECISION and ORDER

     Appeal of the Supplemental Decision and Order Awarding Attorney's Fee of
     James W. Kerr, Jr., Administrative Law Judge, United States Department
     of Labor.

     Mitchell G. Lattof, Sr. (Lattof & Lattof, P.C.), Mobile, Alabama, for
     claimant.

     Traci M. Castille (Franke, Rainey & Salloum), Gulfport, Mississippi, for
     employer.

     Before: HALL, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, SMITH and DOLDER,
     Administrative Appeals Judges.

     PER CURIAM:

     Employer appeals the Supplemental Decision and Order Awarding Attorney's Fee
(91-LHC-14) of Administrative Law Judge James W. Kerr, Jr., rendered on a claim
filed pursuant to the provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act, as amended, 30 U.S.C. §901 et seq. (the Act).  The amount
of an attorney's fee award is discretionary and may be set aside only if the
challenging party shows it to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
not in accordance with law. See, e.g., Muscella v. Sun
Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 12 BRBS 272 (1980).

     Claimant filed a claim for compensation under the Act, and was successful in
obtaining benefits for his hearing loss.  Claimant's counsel filed a fee
application, requesting $3,412.50, representing 22.75 hours of services at $150 per
hour, plus $75 in expenses.  Employer filed objections to the fee application.  In
a Supplemental Decision and Order, after considering employer's objections, the
administrative law judge awarded counsel $2,687.50 for 21.5 hours of services at
$125 per hour, plus the requested costs.  
     On appeal, employer challenges the fee award on various grounds, incorporating
by reference the objections it made below into its appellate brief.  Claimant
responds, urging affirmance of the fee award.

     Employer contends that the fee award is excessive in view of the fact that
this was a routine hearing loss claim involving undetailed form pleadings.  An
attorney's fee must be awarded in accordance with Section 28 of the Act, 33 U.S.C.
§928, and the applicable regulation, Section 702.132, 20 C.F.R. §702.132,
which provides that any attorney's fee approved shall be reasonably commensurate
with the necessary work done, the complexity of the issues involved, and the amount
of benefits awarded. See generally Parrott v. Seattle Joint Port
Labor Relations Committee of the Pacific Maritime Ass'n, 22 BRBS 434 (1989). 
In entering a fee award, the administrative law judge specifically took the
regulatory criteria into account when reducing counsel's requested hourly rate from
$150 to $125.  Moreover, employer has not established that the administrative law
judge abused his discretion in awarding an hourly rate of $125, and we accordingly
affirm the hourly rate awarded. See Maddon v. Western Asbestos Co.,
23 BRBS 55 (1989).

     Employer additionally challenges the number of hours requested by claimant's
counsel and approved by the administrative law judge.  In considering counsel's fee
petition, the administrative law judge addressed employer's specific objections,
and reduced the number of hours requested by 1.25.  Employer's assertions on appeal
are insufficient to meet its burden of proving that the administrative law judge
abused his discretion in this regard; thus, we decline to further reduce or
disallow the hours approved by the administrative law judge.   See
Maddon, 23 BRBS at 55; Cabral v. General Dynamics Corp., 13 BRBS 97
(1981).

     Employer's contentions that were not raised below will not be addressed for
the first time on appeal. Bullock v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., 27 BRBS 90
(1993) (en banc) (Brown and McGranery, JJ., concurring and dissenting),
modified on other grounds on recon. en banc, 28 BRBS 102 (1994), aff'd
mem. sub nom. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, OWCP [Biggs], 46
F.3d 66 (5th Cir. 1995); Clophus v. Amoco Production Co., 21 BRBS 261
(1988).

     Accordingly, the Supplemental Decision and Order Awarding Attorney's Fee of
the administrative law judge is affirmed.

     SO ORDERED.

                                                                        

                         BETTY JEAN HALL, Chief
                         Administrative Appeals Judge

                                                                        

                         ROY P. SMITH
                         Administrative Appeals Judge

                                                                        

                         NANCY S. DOLDER
                         Administrative Appeals Judge

To Top of Document