BRB No. 93-1467
                                         

LOIS EZELL                              )
(Widow of CECIL EZELL)                  )
                                        )
          Claimant-Respondent           )
                                        )
      v.                                )
                                        )
INGALLS SHIPBUILDING,                   )    DATE ISSUED:   01/29/1996   
INCORPORATED                            )
                                        )    
          Self-Insured                  )
          Employer-Petitioner           )     DECISION and ORDER


     Appeal of the Supplemental Decision and Order Awarding Attorney Fees of
     Richard D. Mills, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of
     Labor.

     Rebecca J. Ainsworth (Maples & Lomax, P.A.), Pascagoula, Mississippi,
     for claimant.

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

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

     PER CURIAM:

     Employer appeals the Supplemental Decision and Order Awarding Attorney Fees
(89-LHC-3260) of Administrative Law Judge Richard D. Mills rendered on a claim
filed pursuant to the provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act, as amended, 33 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 shown by the
challenging party 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's counsel submitted a fee petition to the administrative law judge
requesting an attorney's fee of $3,284, representing 25.75 hours of legal services,
at an hourly rate of $125 per hour, as well as $65.25 in expenses, for work
performed before the administrative law judge in connection with claimant's hearing loss claim.  Employer filed
objections to the attorney's fee petition.  Subsequently, the administrative law
judge, after noting employer's objections to the fee petition, reduced the hourly
rate sought by counsel to $110, disallowed 5.875 of the 25.75 hours requested by
counsel, and approved the requested expenses in a Supplemental Decision and Order. 
Accordingly, the administrative law judge awarded claimant's counsel a fee of
$2,186.25, representing 19.875 hours of legal services performed at the hourly rate
of $110, and $65.25 for expenses.  Supplemental Decision and Order at 1-3.  

     On appeal, employer challenges the administrative law judge's attorney's fee
award, incorporating by reference the arguments it made before the administrative
law judge into its appellate brief.

     Employer initially contends that claimant's counsel is not entitled to an
attorney's fee payable by employer since employer voluntarily paid benefits to
claimant and thus claimant did not engage in a successful prosecution of his claim. 
Pursuant to Section 28(b) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §928(b), when an employer
voluntarily pays or tenders benefits and thereafter a controversy arises over
additional compensation due, the employer will be liable for an attorney's fee if
the claimant succeeds in obtaining greater compensation than that agreed to by the
employer. See, e.g., Tait v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., 24
BRBS 59 (1990); Kleiner v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 16 BRBS 297 (1984).

     In the instant case, employer voluntarily paid claimant permanent partial
disability compensation based on a whole man impairment of three percent pursuant
to Section 8(c)(23) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §908(c)(23).  At the hearing,
however, employer contested the issue of whether claimant was entitled to an
assessment under Section 14(e) of the Act;  pursuant to the administrative law
judge's decision, claimant was found to be entitled to additional compensation
under Section 14(e).  Employer is hence liable for claimant's attorney's fees for
services performed at the administrative law judge level, pursuant to Section
28(b), since claimant's counsel succeeded in obtaining additional benefits for
claimant.[1]   Fairley v. Ingalls Shipbuilding,
Inc., 25 BRBS 61 (1991).

     Employer next contends that the fee awarded is excessive, maintaining that the
instant case was routine, uncontested, and not complex.  The administrative law
judge considered the routine and uncomplicated nature of the instant case in
reducing counsel's requested hourly rate from $125 to $110.  We, therefore, reject
employer's contention that the awarded fee must be further reduced on this
criterion because employer has not satisfied its burden of showing that the administrative law judge abused his discretion in
awarding a fee based on an hourly rate of $110. See Ross v. Ingalls
Shipbuilding, Inc., 29 BRBS 42 (1995); see generally Snowden v. Ingalls
Shipbuilding, Inc., 25 BRBS 245 (1991) (Brown, J., dissenting on other
grounds), aff'd on recon. en banc, 25 BRBS 346 (1992) (Brown, J., dissenting
on other grounds). 

     We next reject employer's objections to the number of hours awarded by the
administrative law judge, as it has not shown that the administrative law judge
abused his discretion in this regard.  See Ross, 29 BRBS at 42;  Maddon
v. Western Asbestos Co., 23 BRBS 55 (1989); Cabral v. General Dynamics
Corp., 13 BRBS 97 (1981).  Employer's specific objection to counsel's method
of billing in minimum increments of one-quarter hour also is rejected, as the
administrative law judge considered this objection, and his award conforms to the
criteria set forth in the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit in Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, OWCP [Fairley], No.
89-4459 (5th Cir. July 25, 1990) (unpublished) and Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.
v. Director, OWCP [Biggs], No. 94-40066 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 1995) (unpublished). 

     Accordingly, the Supplemental Decision and Order Awarding Attorney Fees 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

Footnotes.
 1)Employer's contentions which 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.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1995); Clophus v. Amoco Production Co.,
21 BRBS 261 (1988).
 Back to Text

To Top of Document