Appeal of
PAUL A. MASON
Under Contract No. HCR 21515
PSBCA No. 1570
APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Paul A. Mason
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Gary W. Bigelow, Esq.
OPINION OF THE BOARD ON
APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellant
has asked the Board to reconsider its Opinion of
Initially,
Appellant contends the Board did not address the issue of quantum, but instead
decided the issue of entitlement.
Appellant is mistaken.
Entitlement was decided in the earlier Opinion, Paul A. Mason, PSBCA No. 1335, 86-1 BCA ¶
18,722. The Opinion of which Appellant
now seeks reconsideration was limited solely to determining the amount, or
quantum, to which Appellant might be entitled.
Appellant’s confusion apparently stems from the Board’s complete
rejection of his theory of proof on quantum with the result that no recovery
was allowed.
In a
related argument Appellant posits that since his evidence on quantum was the
only evidence in the record his quantum calculation should have been accepted
by the Board and recovery in such amount should have been awarded. Appellant’s position has no merit. The evidence upon which he relies, one
exhibit showing operating costs of a Postal Service vehicle over his route for
one day, was found to have no demonstrated relationship to Appellant’s
increased costs. Since no other evidence
was presented by Appellant to support his alleged increased costs there was no
way for the Board to base a calculation to award any compensation.
Finally,
Appellant argues that the Postal Service imposed a requirement on him to
furnish a larger truck than his contract required and thus he should be paid
all costs related to the use of the larger truck. He further argues that the amount of mail
which he carried on any given day is an immaterial factor. By utilizing such arguments Appellant
actually takes exception to the Board’s initial decision on entitlement. Therein the Board specifically decided the
first issue as follows:
“Because
Appellant voluntarily furnished the large truck, he is not entitled to additional
compensation based solely on the large truck.
E. D. Conto, PSBCA
No. 962 (April 20, 1982).” (86-1 BCA at 94,182)
The Board determined Appellant entitled to additional
compensation only for those particular days when the quantity of mail carried by
Appellant exceeded the quantity which his contract required him to carry. Thus, the amount of mail carried daily is a
material element in determining the amount of recovery. Appellant refused to address this factor in
his quantum presentation, and offered no persuasive evidence to show any
increased operating costs.
Appellant
additionally raises a procedural argument that he was prejudiced by the Board’s
consideration of Respondent’s Reply Brief, alleging the Brief was
untimely. The matter previously was
considered prior to the issuance of the March 11 Opinion when Appellant filed a
motion to Strike Respondent’s Reply Brief.
At that time it was ruled that the Brief was timely filed and the Motion
to Strike was denied. The record fully
supports the prior ruling.
Appellant
has shown no basis, either factual or legal, for the Board to reconsider its
Opinion and grant him any quantum recovery.
Appellant’s Motion merely indicates disagreement with the Board’s
entitlement and quantum opinions and repeats arguments previously considered.
The Motion For Reconsideration is denied.
James D. Finn, Jr.
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman
I concur:
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman
I concur:
David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge
Board Member