BRB No. 98-1546

JOSEPH LOMBARDO                    )
                         )
          Claimant-Petitioner           )    
                         )
     v.                            )
                         )
AMERICAN STEVEDORING, LTD.         )    DATE ISSUED:   07/28/1999 1999
                                        
                         )
     and                           )
                         )
SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY            )
ASSOCIATION                        )
                         )
          Employer/Carrier-             )
          Respondents                   )    DECISION and ORDER

     Appeal of the Order of Remand and Award of Attorney Fees of Ainsworth H.
     Brown, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.

     James R. Campbell, Middle Island, New York, for claimant.

     Christopher J. Field (Weber, Goldstein, Greenberg & Gallagher), Jersey
     City, New Jersey, for employer/carrier.

     Before:  SMITH and BROWN, Administrative Appeals Judges, and NELSON,
     Acting Administrative Appeals Judge.

     PER CURIAM:

     Claimant appeals the Order of Remand and Award of Attorney Fees (98-LHC-954)
of Administrative Law Judge Ainsworth H. Brown 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 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 sought benefits under the Act for a work-related injury to his right
ankle and left knee.  At the proceeding on June 22, 1998, the parties informed the
administrative law judge that they had resolved the dispute between them, and
requested that the case be remanded for processing.  Thereafter, claimant's counsel
submitted a fee application requesting $6,412.50, representing 25.65 hours of legal
services at the hourly rate of $250.

     In a summary Order of Remand and Award of Attorney Fees, the administrative
law judge granted the parties' request to remand the case to the district director
"for processing," and awarded claimant's counsel a fee in the amount of $1,880, "as
urged by the employer."  Order of Remand and Award of Attorney Fees.  The
administrative law judge summarily denied claimant's motion for reconsideration. 
Claimant appeals the award of an attorney's fee, contending that it is so
inadequate as to be arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.  Employer
responds, urging affirmance.  

     Specifically on appeal, claimant contends that the administrative law judge
erred in reducing the amount of the attorney's fee awarded from the amount
requested without sufficient explanation.  We agree that the administrative law
judge's fee award does not comport with law, as a sufficient explanation for
reductions in fee requests must be provided.  See Devine v. Atlantic Container
Lines, G.I.E., 23 BRBS 279 (1990); Collins v. General Dynamics Corp.,
14 BRBS 458 (1981).  Where an administrative law judge has not set forth a
sufficient explanation for the reduction, the Board is prevented from reviewing the
award and will remand the case to the administrative law judge for an explanation.
Devine, 23 BRBS at 288; Speedy v. General Dynamics Corp., 15 BRBS 448
(1983). 

     In the instant case, the administrative law judge summarily found:

     Basically, the employer alleges that the time expended was excessive. 
     I find that there is merit in the exception.  Especially, I note that
     the amount of time devoted to review of correspondence concerning 8(f)
     relief is well taken.

Order of Remand and Award of Attorney Fees.  Thus, the administrative law judge
awarded an attorney's fee in the amount of $1,880 "as urged by the employer."
Id.  The administrative law judge correctly found that claimant's counsel
is not entitled to a fee for work performed regarding the Section 8(f) issue, 33
U.S.C. §908(f). See generally Shaw v. Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp., 23
BRBS 96 (1989); Maddon v. Western Asbestos Co., 23 BRBS 55 (1989).  However,
disallowing these items only reduces the fee petition by .6 hours.  Therefore, as
the administrative law judge neglected to state which other specific hours were
being disallowed and failed to specifically discuss the application of the
regulatory criteria of 20 C.F.R. §702.132 to the fee reduction, the award must
be vacated and the case remanded for reconsideration pursuant to the regulatory
criteria.  Roach v. New York Protective Covering Co., 16 BRBS 114 (1984). 
On remand, the administrative law judge must specify any reductions and provide an
explanation therefor.  Devine, 23 BRBS at 288.

     Accordingly, the administrative law judge's Order of Remand and Award of
Attorney Fees is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration consistent
with this opinion.

     SO ORDERED.




                                                                   
                         ROY P. SMITH
                         Administrative Appeals Judge



                                                                   
                         JAMES F. BROWN
                         Administrative Appeals Judge



                                                                   
                         MALCOLM D. NELSON, Acting
                         Administrative Appeals Judge

To Top of Document