Case law

Vaughan ex rel. A. H. v. United States

107 Fed. Cl. 212 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 14, 2012

caused by immunizations” is rejected as raised, at best, the “questionable role of the immunizations; at worst, it merely reflects historical information from sources unknown to us.” Decision at 24. … The second is that, logically speaking, not one of the records cited establishes that A.H. suffered from seizures prior to December 28.

Mosley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 18, 2015

Triggs said the way the immune system affects the cord produces a variable degree of swelling. Id. at 322. The immune system, not swelling, destroys tissue. Id. Dr. … Although clearly attributing petitioner’s neurologic condition to Td vaccine, Dr. Ramkissoon does not specify what amount of hours or days “soon after” is.

Sodexho Marriott Management, Inc. v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 229 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 2, 2004

Based upon this argument, its analysis of selected NAFI and nonappropriated funds doctrine cases, and a brief discussion of MCCS funding, the plaintiff concludes that “MCCS should not qualify for NAFI immunity. … Thus, the first of the three elements has been established. To establish the second element, a plaintiff must make a showing that there is probable jurisdiction in the district court. Sanders v.

Koopmann v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2020

There is no statutory support for excluding claims arising out of section 3121(v)(2) for the time limitations established by § 6511(a). … One of those conditions is the statute of limitations, which reflects Congress's decision to waive sovereign immunity only if suit is brought within a specific time period. See Walby v.

Copenhaver ex rel. Copenhaver v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

129 Fed. Cl. 176 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 5, 2016

Vaccine case; Motion for Review; Hepatitis-B vaccination; Standard of review; Al-then\ Failure to establish causation; Motion for Review denied. … This case clearly centered on vaccine triggered cytokine expression. Dec. at 14. Dr.

LCM Energy Solutions v. United States

107 Fed. Cl. 770 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 26, 2012

However, while the Tucker Act contains both a grant of jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity, Fisher v. … Congress foresaw — indeed intended — that businesses and individuals would structure investment and lending relationships in reliance on Treasury’s clearly defined duties under Section 1603. Id. at 8.

Cunningham v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2016

Shafrir asserted, show that autoimmunity and immune dysfunction are “established” as causing autism Dr. … Thus Petitioner’s claim clearly fails under Althen Prong 1. 3. Petitioner has failed to establish Prong 2 of Althen in this case.

Hall v. United States

69 Fed. Cl. 51 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2005

Consent must occur through an unequivocal, express waiver of sovereign immunity. Id. … The ECOA contains a waiver of the United States sovereign immunity. See Moore v. U.S.

Coombs v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 29, 2014

Wiznitzer responded, “the answer is clearly yes.” (Tr. 214.) After extensive recitation of RWC’s medical history, Dr. Wiznitzer, who as described above is much better qualified than Dr. … The short answer is that I find that Petitioners’ theory in this case clearly does not satisfy the Althen test. A.

Furash & Co. v. United States

46 Fed. Cl. 518 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 26, 2000

This jurisdictional limitation cannot be modified by contract; it is a limitation established by Congress that is embodied in statute. … There the court, in addressing the question whether the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was immune from suit, stated the following: A waiver of federal sovereign immunity can be found in one of two places

Harper/Nielsen-Dillingham, Builders, Inc. v. United States

81 Fed. Cl. 667 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 29, 2008

Cont.Code § 7102 does not apply to the subcontract in this ease *679 because the federal government is clearly not a “public agency” as defined in Cal. Govt. Code § 4401 . … Thus, the government established that the subcontract in this case contained an unambiguous “no damage for delay” clause completely immunizing Harper from liability for delay damages to KCI and established that KCI would

Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United States

129 Fed. Cl. 81 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 10, 2016

The Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity, which allows a plaintiff to sue the United States for money damages. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). … health plans using federally- facilitated Exchanges and the qualified health plans using state-established Exchanges.

Dussault v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 26, 2016

To establish entitlement to compensation under the Program, a petitioner is required to establish each of the three prongs of Althen by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … Immun., 2006. 30(1): 3- 11. Pet. Ex.12. Jerne, N.K., Towards a Network Theory of the Immune System. Annales d’immunologie. 1974: 125C (1-2): 373-89. Pet. Ex. 14.

Pappas v. United States

66 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2005

A plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.Cir.1988); Thomas v. United States, 56 Fed.Cl. 112, 115 (2003); Martinez v. … The government’s dealings and alleged immunity Agreement with Mr. Pappas were clearly related to the criminal investigation of Mr. Pappas and subsequent indictment. The government, in the ease of Mr.

Dawnwood Properties/78 v. United States

53 Fed. Cl. 168 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 13, 2002

However, plaintiffs response brief did not raise an argument under RCFC 15(c) to attempt to establish standing. … Because of the limitation on this court’s jurisdiction to cases where the sovereign has clearly waived immunity “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or

R.K. v. the Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 23, 2016

Doctor McCusker, who is far more qualified in this area than is Dr. Shafrir, opined that there is no evidence in A.K.’s medical history indicating that he had any immune deficiency or disorder.244 Tr. 1401. … Deth likewise failed to establish that A.K.’s gastrointestinal complaints are significant to his immune status or otherwise contributed to the cause of A.K.’s autism.

Koopmann v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2020

The moving party carries the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). … In order to fall within the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity, a plaintiff’s claim for money damages against the United States must be based upon an express or implied contract, or a money-mandating constitutional

Major W.D. Foster v. United States

111 Fed. Cl. 658 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 3, 2013

Citing lack of a qualifying traumatic event, the Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (“OSGLI”) denied Major Foster’s first application on March 18, 2008, as well as his second and third applications on April 23 … Paraplegia is included in the list of qualifying traumatic injuries. §1980A(b)(1)(F).

Hovey v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services

38 Fed. Cl. 397 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 19, 1997

The special master held that the Hoveys failed to establish that it is more likely than not that Carol received a DPT/P vaccination on September 21, 1960. Id. … The Vaccine Rules clearly establish that the special master may decide a case on the basis of written *401 filings without an evidentiary hearing. Vaccine Rule 8(d); see Dickerson, 35 Fed.Cl. at 598; Plummer v.

PCI/RCI v. United States

37 Fed. Cl. 785 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 14, 1997

As a waiver of sovereign immunity, the EAJA must be construed strictly. Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 685 , 103 S.Ct. 3274, 3277-78 , 77 L.Ed.2d 938 (1983). … Moreover, there is no *792 evidence before the court that there is a paucity of qualified attorneys specializing in construction law in the Minneapolis, Minnesota area.