Case law

Gargoyles, Inc. v. United States

45 Fed. Cl. 139 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 15, 1999

Defendant contends that “pending” in the above context “clearly refers to ‘pending a final, appealable judgment.’ ” The language does not “clearly” refer to final judgment by the trial court, but instead, like the second … Clearly, some of the defenses defendant raised were not as strong as others; indeed, the Court rejected several.

Annuity Transfers, Ltd. v. United States

86 Fed. Cl. 173 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 18, 2009

The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969). … Not only does such an order constitute declaratory relief that this court is unable to provide, but section 5891 clearly requires plaintiffs to obtain the qualified order from a Louisiana state court.

Worthington v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 712 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 5, 2001

Based on a review of the EEO proceeding, it was clearly the type of administrative adjudication envisioned by the Supreme Court. … According to 5 U.S.C. § 6127 (a), agencies are permitted to establish compressed work schedules notwithstanding the basic 40 hour workweek and eight hour day established by 5 U.S.C. § 6101 (1988).

Echols v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 20, 2021

Petitioner has established Althen prong three. D. … Regardless, treating physicians’ opinions are often not determinative when well-qualified experts are retained. In this case, Dr.

Klamath Tribe Claims Committee v. United States

106 Fed. Cl. 87 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 16, 2012

United States, 436 F.2d 1008, 1010-11 (Ct.Cl.1971). 2 Section 10 of the 1954 Act authorized the government to dispose of federally-owned property acquired for administration of the Tribes or to transfer this property to qualifying … , “there remains the interest of the courts and the public in complete, consistent, and efficient settlement of controversies,” which implicates the “public’s stake in settling disputes by wholes, whenever possible, for clearly

Trinco Investment Company v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2018

Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. … This result is clearly contrary to Congress’s plenary power over inferior courts in Article III. Patchak v.

Campbell v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

90 Fed. Cl. 369 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 26, 2009

Keep in mind Sjogren’s, lupus versus immune phenomenon simply triggered by the immunization that will gradually resolve.” Id. Ms. Campbell saw Dr. Gilhooly again in February 2004. Entitlement Decision at *4. Ms. … Brawer, was “a highly qualified expert witness whose extensive credentials [were] not in dispute.” Id. “[W]here a highly qualified expert such as [Dr.

Fire-Trol Holdings, LLC v. United States

62 Fed. Cl. 440 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 12, 2004

Fire-Trol also alleges that the USFS failed to follow relevant statutory and regulatory provisions in modifying its requirements for qualifying products to be included on its qualified products list (“QPL”) for wildland fire … Congressional consent to suit in the Court of Federal Claims, which thereby waives sovereign immunity, must be explicit and strictly construed. United States v.

Mata v. United States

118 Fed. Cl. 92 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 3, 2014

CPAC will determine if Complainant is qualified for the vacancy and will notify the Chief of Staff of any positions for which he qualifies. … Holmes’s record clearly was to prevent Mr.

K.T. Ex Rel. Dudenhoeffer v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

132 Fed. Cl. 175 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 22, 2017

The special master heard the testimony of two well-qualified experts offering contradictory opinions as to vaccine causation. … Gibbons, clearly did not share Dr. Voss’s expressed concerns. Compare Pet’r’s Ex. 12 at 1, with Pet’r’s Ex. 37 at 7. Instead, Dr.

W.E. Partners II, LLC v. United States

119 Fed. Cl. 684 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 2015

The Tucker act establishes Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction and waives sovereign immunity over certain claims against the United States, including those founded upon federal statutes and regulations. Id. … In Chevron, the Supreme Court established the primary test for determining whether to afford deference to an agency’s interpretation of a law which the agency administers. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43.

Cerrone v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 1, 2023

Santoro was not qualified to opine on the molecular underpinnings of inflammatory diseases. … Liacouras could not find record evidence that Petitioner’s second or third HPV doses had caused a worsening of UC symptoms (although the record does clearly establish general worsening between February and March 2016).

Giles v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services

37 Fed. Cl. 525 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 7, 1997

Glezen to be “a highly-qualified and extraordinarily compelling witness,” and stated that the testimony of petitioners’ expert witnesses “do not dissuade the special master.” … Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that the witnesses proffered as medical experts by each side were qualified as experts. . Dr.

Exum v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2025

In Respondent’s view, the Chief Special Master “clearly did not demand ‘complete and direct proof.’ … Here, the Chief Special Master clearly did so.

Morales v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 27, 2019

Shafrir, a well-qualified neurologist and epileptologist, opined that status epilepticus can lower the threshold for further seizures. … The records more clearly establish that on March 29 temporal relationship between M.S.M.’s fourth DTaP, Hib, and PCV vaccinations received on December 26, 2013 and

Eberline v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 15, 2026

Kinet then explains that to “establish[] causation between a vaccine and a disease” medical experts “require that the natural infection against which the vaccine protects, being generally a stronger immune stimulus, should … conclusion of the law”; (3) “the [special master’s] findings are clearly erroneous”; or (4) “the record contains no evidence upon which” the special master rationally “could have based [his] decision.”

Stillwell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

118 Fed. Cl. 47 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 5, 2014

“An abuse of discretion may be found when (1) the court's decision is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) the decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of the law; (3) the court's findings are clearly erroneous … The Federal Circuit, in Hibbard, upheld the Special Master’s decision, without any of the qualifying language used in Broekelschen and Lombardi.

Putman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 1, 2022

Gershwin qualified several of his points regarding the relevance of molecular mimicry herein. … Respondent offered a qualified immunologist to oppose the theory, and the special master deemed the causation theory not to have been preponderantly established 14 (although the special master’s decision was equally based

Randolph v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 7, 2021

Steinman’s lumping of BBE with ADEM, noting that although both were “monophasic immune mediated inflammatory diseases of the CNS,” it was not unquestionably established that both reflected either an autoimmune attack on MBP … And that 30-day period reveals no evidence of any aberrant immune response.

Insurance Co. of the West v. United States

55 Fed. Cl. 529 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 11, 2003

the issue of sovereign immunity. … Plaintiff maintains that it could not serve as an assignee of contract funds because a surety does not qualify as a financial institution for the purposes of the Assignment of Claims Act of 1940.