Case law

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.

Agee v. United States

72 Fed. Cl. 284 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 28, 2006

Therefore, Congress has not waived the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity with regard to ADA claims. See Gray v. … It is well established that this Court lacks authority to grant equitable relief except in limited circumstances. See Bowen v.

Lyashenko v. United States

41 Fed. Cl. 626 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 14, 1998

Referencing the Treaty provisions upon which the plaintiff relied, the letter set forth the IRS position that “[t]he wages paid to you by [the University] are not payments from abroad and are not other qualifying payments … Discussion The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182 , 56 S.Ct. 780 , 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936); Walker v.

Lamson v. United States

117 Fed. Cl. 755 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2014

As noted above, the second statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287(c), is a medical immunity provision which was established in 1996 as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). … As a result, the provision is broader than a mere limitation on damages, which only prevents some recovery of damages; under § 287(c), a qualifying entity cannot be held to have infringed.

Riser v. United States

93 Fed. Cl. 212 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2010

In essence, the Tucker Act acts as a waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity for certain money-mandating claims. United States v. … Riser “bears the burden of establishing by ‘cogent and clearly convincing evidence’ that the [Board’s] decision was arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law.” Colon v.

Cargo Carriers, Inc. v. United States

40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,871 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 11, 1995

When Cargo Carriers subsequently submitted a rate tender, this was clearly an offer on the part of the plaintiff to enter into a contract for transportation services. … The well-established rule is that a party cannot recover interest from the Government absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity by Congress. Library of Congress v.

SAI Industries Corp. v. United States

60 Fed. Cl. 731 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 26, 2004

This evidence, according to SAI, establishes clearly and convincingly that the defects noted were due to design defects. … Further, we are not clearly convinced that SAI has even established that the government failed to consider the evidence SAI now supposes.

Obadele v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 432 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 24, 2002

Those rules clearly define standards of eligibility. … Based on a review of your file, you have clearly indicated that you are not of Japanese ancestry ...

Myers v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 674 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2001

Moreover, it is the plaintiffs burden to prove the existence of any qualifying exceptions, and he has not done so. Callahan v. United States, 49 Fed.Cl. 555, 558 (2001). Mr. … If the veteran has a qualifying disability, he is assigned a disability rating and compensation level based upon the reduction in his capacity to earn income from civil occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (1994).

Top Gun Services, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 11, 2020

Rather, Top Gun must establish that it was a “qualified bidder.” Id. at 1370–71. … First, Top Gun has failed to establish that it is a qualified bidder. Second, Top Gun is not a nonprofit agency. (Def.’s Mot., App. 66 (Nuckols Decl. Attach. 1)).

Casa De Cambio Comdiv S.A. de C.V. v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 137 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2000

See Bowman, 35 Fed.Cl. at 401 (“cases such as the instant one — where the Government exacts property which it later sells and for which it receives money — -must *146 necessarily qualify for consideration under the established … However, the standard employed in Breault to define state action is clearly broader than that employed by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit in analyzing takings claims.

Lamson v. United States

101 Fed. Cl. 280 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2011

Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Precedent Clearly Establish That the Court of Federal Claims Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Entertain a Claim of Patent Infringement as a Fifth Amendment Taking Under the Tucker Act Plaintiffs … Plaintiff argues that passages in Florida Prepaid and Roche establish that patents are property under the Constitution.

Commercial Casualty Insurance v. United States

71 Fed. Cl. 104 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 26, 2006

The court reasoned that sovereign immunity had been waived because the Tucker Act “waiv[es] sovereign immunity as to claims, not particular claimants.” 243 F.3d at 1373-74 . … for the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.

Jump v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 6, 2015

An abnormal immune response has been implicated.” … compromised immune system.

Barnes v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 492 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 3, 2005

United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 718 , 770 & n. 93 (2004) (discussing the jury verdict method of establishing damages); Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y. v. … Any notion that the latter principle is compelled by sovereign immunity, see, e.g., Buchan, 27 Fed.Cl. at 225; Saunooke v.

Western Shoshone National Council v. United States

73 Fed. Cl. 59 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 19, 2006

Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 315 , 106 S.Ct. 2957 , 92 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986) (holding that the United States is immune from an award of interest absent an express waiver of immunity). … Because payment of the ICC judgment occurred after the omission of the ICCA from the U.S.Code, Dann clearly establishes that the ICCA’s finality provision may still act to bar claims against the Government.

Hernandez v. United States

59 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 689 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2010

. § 1491 (2006), “confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Federal Claims over the specified categories of actions brought against the United States, and ... it waives the Government’s sovereign immunity for those actions,” … Therefore, jurisdiction has not been established over plaintiffs claims that attempt to plead a breach of contract.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States

69 Fed. Cl. 784 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 25, 2006

,] and has clearly prejudiced the Government in completing fact discovery.” Id. at 11. B. … immunity provided by this subdivision.”). .

Fester v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2016

Standards for Adjudication The Vaccine Act established the Program to compensate vaccine-related injuries and deaths. § 10(a). … , overactive Th2 immunity, and worsening encephalopathy.”

Kay v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

80 Fed. Cl. 601 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 21, 2008

Sand & Gravel reinforces the conclusion reached by the Federal Circuit as to the scope of the Vaccine Act in Brice II—that the statute of limitations set forth in a congressional waiver of sovereign immunity establishes a … Just as the Tucker Act operates as a waiver of sovereign immunity establishing jurisdiction over cases filed within the time period prescribed, so, too, the Vaccine Act operates as a waiver of sovereign immunity allowing