skip navigational links United States Department of Labor
May 9, 2009        
DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection
DOL Home USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Lederhaus v. Paschen & Midwest Inspection Service, Ltd., 91-ERA-13 (ALJ Oct. 22, 1991)


U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Seven Parkway Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220

(412) 644-5754

DATE: OCT 22 1991
CASE NO.: 91-ERA-13

In the Matter of:

GORDON M. LEDERHAUS,
    Complainant

    v.

DONALD PASCHEN,
    Respondent
    and
MIDWEST INSPECTION SERVICE, LTD.,
    Respondent

RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY FEES

   By Recommended Decision and Order dated August 9, 1991, Gordon M. Lederhaus, the Complainant in this case, was awarded back pay and compensatory damages under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and Donald Paschen and Midwest Inspection Service, Ltd. were found liable for their payment. Complainant's counsel, Thomas Nelson, on September 7, 1991, filed an Application for Attorney Fees and for Costs in the amount of $19,043.69.1 This amount represents 62.2 hours of work at $300.00 per hour and $383.69 in miscellaneous expenses. No objection has been filed to this application.2


[Page 2]

   After consideration of the nature of the issues involved, the high degree of skill with which the Complainant was represented, the amount of time and work involved, and other relevant factors, it is concluded that the amount of $19,043.69 constitutes a reasonable fee and is approved. The fee is assessed against Donald Paschen and Midwest Inspection Service, Ltd.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

   IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Respondents, Donald Paschen and Midwest Inspection Service, Ltd., be ordered to pay the sum of $19,043.69 directly to Thomas Nelson, Esq., for services rendered to Complainant in this case.

       THOMAS M. BURKE
       Administrative Law Judge

TMB/bac

[ENDNOTES]

1 Due to an apparent typographical error, Complainant's counsel's affidavit in support of his application computes the total amount requested to be $19,403.69. The correct amount, however, should be $19,043.69, as stated above.

2 Respondents on September 30, 1991 filed a brief entitled Comments in Opposition to the Recommended Decision and order of the Administrative Law Judge, in which they objected to several of the specific findings made in the August 9, 1991 Decision and Order. However, Respondents made no mention in this brief of the attorney fee application filed by Complainant's counsel approximately three weeks earlier. Pursuant to the undersigned's Recommended Order, Respondents were given ten days following receipt of the attorney fee application to file any objections to the application.



Phone Numbers