July 25, 1996

Appeal of

BETTY AND EDDIE JACKSON

Under Contract No. HCR 707AD

PSBCA No. 3624

APPEARANCES FOR APPELLANT:

Betty and Eddie Jackson

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Richard Kessler, Esq.

OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Appellants have filed a motion requesting that the Board reconsider its decision in Betty and Eddie Jackson, PSBCA No. 3624, 96-1 BCA ¶ 27,994.^[1]  Although provided an opportunity to respond to Appellants’ motion, Respondent did not do so.

In our original Opinion, we held that Appellants’ claim for an increase to their annual compensation under a highway transportation contract was barred by a series of amendments they signed that recognized adjustments to the service they provided and increased their annual compensation, although in an amount less than Appellants later sought in the appeal.  In their motion for reconsideration, Appellants assert that the contract guaranteed them a fixed rate per mile traveled, and that, therefore, the amendments that had the effect of reducing their rate per mile were improper, notwithstanding that their overall annual compensation increased.  They also argue that the Board erroneously denied their request for $3.00 per mile for extra trips they were directed to make for Respondent.

The same arguments and contentions were made in the appeal, and reargument of issues previously raised and fully considered in the Board decision does not provide a basis for reconsideration.  See Patricia J. Stevens, PSBCA No. 3272, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,951; F.C.F. Company, PSBCA No. 1353, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19,522.  Nevertheless, we have reviewed our findings of fact and application of law, and we are satisfied that we fully considered Appellant’s contentions and arguments.  Theirs was a contract under which they provided service for a fixed annual contract price.  The rate per mile under the contract was not fixed but could, and did, vary with negotiated changes to the annual rate that were not directly proportional to changes in mileage.  See Opinion, footnote 2.  We remain persuaded that Appellants are not entitled to compensation for the changed service greater than that stated in the amendments to which they unequivocally agreed. 

Appellants have not submitted any previously-unavailable ^[2] or newly- discovered evidence or shown any factual or legal errors which would warrant changing our decision.  See Montgomery-Ross-Fisher, PSBCA No. 1096, 84-1 BCA ¶ 17,607.

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

Norman D. Menegat

Administrative Judge

Board Member

I concur:

James A. Cohen

Administrative Judge

Chairman

I concur:

David I. Brochstein

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

---

^[1]  Judge Finn, who was a member of the panel that decided the appeal, has since retired from the Board.

^[2]  As part of the motion, Mr. Jackson made statements (unsworn) repeating his arguments for the $3.00 per hour rate for extra trips and provided additional information about the cost of the truck and driver used to perform the extra trips.  There is no reason why this information could not have been presented at the hearing, so considering it as evidence at this stage would be inappropriate.  See Pascal Redfern, PSBCA No. 1512, 87-3 BCA ¶ 19,983.  Nevertheless, we note that the additional information still would not provide a sufficient basis for an award in excess of $1.50 per mile for the extra trips.