Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.23s
70 Fed. Cl. 674 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 19, 2006
It remains a frequency that is sufficient to qualify him for a thirty percent rating under the VASRD. … The Board did not explain how one would qualify for a rating that called for a prostrating condition.
Cited 41 timesPublished39 Fed. Cl. 673 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 16, 1997
Tolling the statute of limitations is, in effect, an expansion of the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity. … This Court, therefore, is permitted to do so only after a plaintiff has clearly established that the requirements for tolling have been satisfied. See Catellus Dev. Corp., 31 Fed.Cl. at 407 -OS.
Cited 41 timesPublished82 Fed. Cl. 367 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2008
In none of these instances does plaintiff point to any specific violation of the law or establish that this court has jurisdiction. … Even reading plaintiffs complaint as liberally as possible, plaintiff has failed to establish jurisdiction in this court.
Cited 3 timesPublishedSkorupska v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 3, 2026
Schwartzberg on November 13, 2013, at 8 months and prior to any immunization, he [N.S.] was very clearly severely delayed in all domains.” (alteration added; internal reference omitted). Respondent’s expert Dr. … Therefore, it is inaccurate to claim that the timing of his injury is not established; the onset clearly occurred after the vaccination. (alteration added).
Cited 0 timesPublishedWyoming Sawmills, Inc. v. United States
90 Fed. Cl. 148 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2009
The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims is established by the Tucker Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(1). … The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls upon the plaintiff. FW/PBS, Inc. v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedWyble v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 24, 2026
In her reply, Petitioner emphasizes that her medical records and expert opinions clearly establish that she suffers from CIDP, as her treating neurologists at Jefferson and the University of Pennsylvania “repeatedly documented … I have reviewed expert opinions from neurologists and immunologists well qualified to offer their views.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedBell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2017
He also found significant Petitioner’s purported second reaction after her third dose of Hep B vaccine, noting that a secondary (memory) immune response is known to result more quickly than a first immune response. … Bell had suffered an immune response to any doses of the Hep B vaccine. Tr. at 316. In order to conclude that there was an immune response, there would, in Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMark Dunning Industries, Inc. v. United States
60 Fed. Cl. 687 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 27, 2004
Accordingly, this Court finds that plaintiff has established prejudice. III. … SBA stated that “[t]o the extent MDI’s appeal focuses on whether Si-Nor met the 35 percent employee HUBZone residency requirement at the time of its bid, that information was not considered by the AA/HUB because it was clearly
Cited 4 timesPublishedMoore's Cafeteria Services v. United States
77 Fed. Cl. 180 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 13, 2007
Finally, the GAO found that, “[g]iv-en the price offered by the [SLA], while higher than the protester’s, was lower than the price of the third technically acceptable offeror, the comparison of offerors’ prices to one another clearly … the commodities produced by and the services provided by any qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely handicapped individuals. 41 U.S.C. § 47 . .
Cited 17 timesPublished66 Fed. Cl. 57 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2005
Accordingly, the six-year statute of limitations is an express limitation on the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. … In an action for a taking of land, “the key date for accrual purposes is the date on which the ... land has been clearly and permanently taken.” Id.
Cited 6 timesPublishedParadigm Engineers and Constructors, Pllc v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2020
The SBA uses the NAICS to “determine which entities qualify as small business concerns. … Paradigm did not qualify as a SDVOSB under the Architectural Services NAICS Code because its average annual receipts exceeded the size standard. Thus, Paradigm was not qualified to submit a second SF330. C.
Cited 0 timesPublished46 Fed. Cl. 653 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 4, 2000
By virtue of its reference to the Act, section 3021 also establishes a sum certain to be paid, namely, $20,000. … Contrary to defendant’s claims, the plain language of section 3021 clearly requires such payments and by incorporating the eligibility standards of the Act (e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 1989b-7(2)), provides a detailed definition of
Cited 6 timesPublished'Adbel-Al-Mu'mit v. United States
92 Fed. Cl. 422 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2010
Accordingly, the Court must examine the pleadings to see if Plaintiff has a cause of action, even if not clearly articulated. Sumner v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 627, 628 (2006) (citing Ruderer v. … Further, the non-moving party bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Leonardo v. United States, 55 Fed.Cl. 344, 346 , (2003).
Cited 0 timesPublishedJ v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 2, 2021
s immunization history due to reports of TM following receipt of the Hepatitis B vaccine. Id. at 231. Dr. … IVIG therapy is used to treat immune system disorders. During an IVIG treatment, immunoglobulin (a combination of antibody proteins) is injected into the body to help the immune system fight off infections.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLax Electronics, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 10, 2021
Second, Automatic alleged that DLA violated FAR § 9.205(a) by not allowing Automatic sufficient time to re-qualify for the QPL and by failing to give notice of DLA’s intent to establish a qualification requirement, including … The Federal Circuit in Hamlet provided four factors to establish whether a promulgating agency intended to establish a binding rule: “(a) whether the language of the provision is mandatory or advisory; (b) whether the provision
Cited 0 timesPublished51 Fed. Cl. 69 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2001
To obtain relief upon a claim of unlawful discharge the plaintiff must establish by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence (1) a material legal error or injustice in the [BCMR] proceeding and (2) an adequate nexus between … This wording clearly does not mandate the Coast Guard to retain any such person.
Cited 24 timesPublishedGrady v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2018
She states that for these reasons her case qualifies for equitable tolling. … Congress was keenly aware that some meritorious claims might not be filed before the deadline established in the Act. Congress initially provided a filing period of 24 months for outstanding claims under§ 16(a)(l).
Cited 0 timesPublishedAmergen Energy Co. v. United States
113 Fed. Cl. 52 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 8, 2013
One fund is a “qualified” fund, the other is a “non-qualified” fund. 7 For TMI-1, at the time of purchase the qualified fund was valued at $132,934,830 and the non-qualified fund was valued at $168,667,515. Id. … One fund is a qualified fund, the other is a non-qualified fund.
Cited 3 timesPublishedIntersport Fashions West, Inc. v. United States
84 Fed. Cl. 454 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 29, 2008
The Tucker Act provides the waiver of sovereign immunity necessary to sue the United States for money damages, but the plaintiff must establish an independent substantive right to money damages from the United States, that … In Howell , the inadequacy of the documents was clearly more glaring than any inadequacy in this ease but was still not found sufficient to render the assessment in that case invalid.
Cited 11 timesPublishedLENNAR CORPORATION v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 6, 2026
It also argued more narrowly that the court lacked jurisdiction to assess interest on any amounts due Plaintiffs as indemnification because Section 330 does not expressly waive sovereign immunity for interest. Id. … The Court finds the contemporaneous billing entries supplied by Plaintiffs are sufficient to establish the reasonableness of the fees paid.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna