BRB No. 93-1469

NEAL SMITH                              )
                                        )
          Claimant-Respondent           )
                                        )
     v.                                 )
                                        )
INGALLS SHIPBUILDING,                   )    DATE ISSUED:   02/29/1996
INCORPORATED                            )
                                        )
          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
     the claimant.

     Traci M. Castille (Franke, Rainey & Salloum), Gulfport, Mississippi, for
     the 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's Fee
(91-LHC-127) 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, 33 U.S.C. §901 et seq. (the Act).  The amount of an
attorney's fee award is discretionary and will not be set aside unless 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 sought an attorney's fee of $2,942.50, representing 19.25
hours at $150 per hour, .50 hours at $110 per hour, plus $75 in expenses for work
performed before the administrative law judge in connection with claimant's hearing
loss claim.  The administrative law judge awarded counsel a fee of $2,156.25,
representing 16.25 hours at an hourly rate of $125, .5 hours at the rate of $100
per hour, plus expenses of $75.  Employer appeals the administrative law judge's
fee award, incorporating by reference the arguments it made below into its
appellate brief.  Claimant responds, urging affirmance of the fee award.
     Employer contends that the fee awarded is excessive given the routine nature
of the case.  An attorney's fee must be awarded in accordance with Section 28 of
the Act, 33 U.S.C. §928, and the applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R.
§702.132, which provides that the award of any attorney's fee shall be
reasonably commensurate with the necessary work done, the complexity of the legal
issues involved and the amount of benefits awarded. See generally Parrott v.
Seattle Joint Labor Relations Committee of the Pacific Maritime Ass'n, 22 BRBS
434 (1989).  In the present case, the administrative law judge considered the
complexity of the case in reducing various itemized entries.  We therefore reject
employer's contention that the awarded fee must be further reduced on this basis. 
See Maddon v. Western Asbestos Co., 23 BRBS 55 (1989). 

     Employer's objections to the number of hours and hourly rate awarded are
rejected, as it has not been shown that the administrative law judge abused his
discretion in this regard. See Ross v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., 29 BRBS
42 (1995); Maddon, 23 BRBS at 55; Cabral v. General Dynamics Corp.,
13 BRBS 97 (1981).  Moreover, we note that the fee he awarded 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). 

     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
in pert. part 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 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