Case law

Dowling v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 15, 2025

Dowling submitted is an approximately 12-page article, titled “Pathobiology of Secondary Immune Thrombocytopenia.” … Dowling asserted: “Her counsel acted diligently and in good faith, assembling a record that clearly satisfied the standard for reasonable basis at the time of filing.” Pet’r’s Supp’l Reply at 2.

Jg Technologies, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 10, 2021

The United States has waived its sovereign immunity for patent infringement claims brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). … Mar. 10, 2017) (“The mere existence of a contract . . . is not enough to establish that authorization or consent was granted, but rather, a plaintiff must show that the Defendant authorized the infringement . . . before immunity

Buckley v. United States

51 Fed. Cl. 174 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 6, 2001

Buckley clearly meets the applicable statutory standard. … As DEA investigators, DIs are clearly in the law enforcement or firefighting field and the DEA is clearly an organization having a law enforcement mission.

Neptune v. United States

38 Fed. Cl. 510 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 22, 1997

Regardless of whether their arguments are adopted, plaintiffs clearly have stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Therefore, defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied. B. … We have emphasized that judicial review is only appropriate where the Secretary’s discretion is limited, and Congress has established “tests or standards” against which the court can measure his conduct.

Hage v. United States

35 Fed. Cl. 147 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 8, 1996

The Act of 1866 clearly acknowledges vested water rights on public lands. … Defendant argues that plaintiffs do not qualify for compensation under 43 U.S.C. § 1752 (g) for three reasons.

CCL Service Corp. v. United States

43 Fed. Cl. 680 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 10, 1999

Although jurisdiction may be broadened through legislation, the “waiver of immunity and creation of jurisdiction must be qualified by any conditions that Congress has placed on them.” … United States, 42 Fed.Cl. 880, 885 (1999) (noting intervention of non-interested parties would violate “principle that waivers of immunity must be narrowly construed”); Connolly v.

Myles v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 19, 2021

“The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” … Myles’s claims are clearly beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of this court or clearly fail as a matter of law. IT IS SO ORDERED. MARGARET M.

Young v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2026

Young’s claim ultimately does not qualify for equitable tolling or accrual suspension. … Cir. 2017) (“failure to explicitly discuss every issue or every piece of evidence does not alone establish that the tribunal did not consider it”).

Pope v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 17, 2022

Cir. 1997) (noting that this additional requirement is based upon sovereign immunity principles). A money-mandating statute is “reasonably amenable to the reading that it mandates a right of recovery in damages.” … Of course, if Pope’s thyroid condition did not even qualify for a PFA waiver, it is inconceivable that it qualified as a disability.

Hoffman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 26, 2023

The immune response is rapid and occurs in days to weeks. Pet. Ex. 22 at 1. Dr. … Miller is pediatric rheumatologist not qualified to opine on immunology. Dr.

geiler/schrudde & Zimmerman v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2017

Although the Tucker Act explicitly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims, it “does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages.” … “To prove a direct economic interest as a putative prospective bidder, [the bidder] is required to establish that it had a ‘substantial chance’ of receiving the contract.” Id.; see also Info. Tech. & Appl. v.

Csi Aviation, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 12, 2026

Buono, 559 U.S. 28 The Federal Circuit has recognized that “the Tucker Act expressly waives sovereign immunity for claims against the United States in bid protests” pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b). Sys. … That statute clearly tracks the Article III “case-or-controversy requirement,” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, and thus imports its minimum standards.

Fankhauser v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 15, 2014

In order to receive compensation, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a qualified physician proving a causal relationship. See § 300aa- 13(a)(1). … For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned finds that petitioner has not established entitlement to compensation and her petition must be dismissed.

Gapen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 27, 2022

However, the treatment notes from the February 22, 2016 and February 25, 2016 visits do not clearly indicate Mr. Gapen was prescribed Lialda at those times. Mr. … The Secretary’s experts were persuasive in establishing the factors that increase a person’s risk for relapsing disease and flares and were persuasive in establishing that Mr. Gapen had many of these risk factors.

Coastal Environmental Group, Inc. v. United States

118 Fed. Cl. 15 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 25, 2014

This prohibition is derived from the United States’ sovereign immunity. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941) (“The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.”). … Because paragraph 19 clearly indicated that the document had been prepared in March 2013, Ms.

Bice v. United States

72 Fed. Cl. 432 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 6, 2006

The PSOBA qualifies as “a separate *442 statute [that] establishes the right that allegedly has been breached.” Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1171 (Fed.Cir.2005). … As a general proposition, expert evidence qualifies as evidence.

Walters v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 15, 2026

Although clearly easier to meet than the preponderant standard required for compensation, “courts have struggled with the nature and quantum of evidence necessary to establish a reasonable basis.” Wirtshafter v. … However, Petitioner later returned to the pharmacy and obtained an undated, uncertified “Immunization Services School Immunization Notification Form” (“School Immunization Form”) from a different pharmacist purporting to

Widtfeldt v. United States

122 Fed. Cl. 158 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 2, 2015

The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that the court lacks jurisdiction. … li]TI: $ rf i plaintiff tulfills this require;";,, the federal govemment's sovercign immunity from,uit. cti. vit*aui"e

Rutledge v. United States

72 Fed. Cl. 396 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 22, 2006

It is well established that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over cases sounding in tort. … United States Postal Serv., 692 F.2d 1378, 1382 (Fed.Cir.1982) (“The filing of and proceeding with clearly frivolous appeals constitutes an unnecessary and unjustifiable burden on already overcrowded courts, diminishes the

Williams v. United States

91 Fed. Cl. 560 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 2, 2010

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), this relaxed standard does not relieve a plaintiff from establishing jurisdiction. See Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 497, 499 (2004). … Williams’ request and evidence, and clearly explained the Board’s findings and conclusion. Specifically, the Board examined Mr.