In re Thompson Arthur Paving Co.

WELLS, Judge.

In its first argument, the DOT contends that the Board erred by failing to dismiss Thompson-Arthur’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. DOT argues that Thompson-Arthur changed both the theory and the substance of the claim after the claim was denied by the Administrator and that these changes divested the Board of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

It is an established principle of jurisprudence, resting on grounds of sound public policy, that a state may not be sued in its own courts or elsewhere unless it…