Case law

Eloyan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 1, 2025

“An abuse of discretion exists ‘when the trial court’s decision is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful, or is based on clearly erroneous findings of fact or erroneous conclusions of law.’” … Eloyan failed to establish that Special Master Oler’s contrary finding was a result of “factual misconception or misunderstanding” or an “error of law or fact.”

Delaney Construction Corp. v. United States

197 A.L.R. Fed. 719 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 19, 2003

Pursuant to that legislation, the HUBZone program was established. … This is clearly evident from the illogical argument of defendant and plaintiff that the FAR 52.219^1 clause is needed to provide a place for a HUBZone small business to indicate that it waives the statutory price evaluation

Bloch v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

126 Fed. Cl. 460 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 30, 2016

In order to proceed with their case, they will be required to file an expert reporl of a qualified medical doctor supporting their claim. … Thus, the burden was on petitioners in this case to establish a plausible theory of causation with appropriate expert opinions.

Newtech Research Systems LLC v. United States

99 Fed. Cl. 193 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 16, 2011

Plaintiffs reliance upon Eaton Contract Services, Inc., therefore, is clearly misplaced. … A cost-reimbursement contract "providefs] for payment of allowable incurred costs" and "establish[es] an estimate of total cost for the purpose of obligating funds and establishing a ceiling that the contractor may not exceed

Harding v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 6, 2020

Petitioner explained that because “[h]er GPA clearly started after the second Gardasil vaccine Petitioner received in 2010. … That should be enough to establish reasonable basis.

Hodge v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 11, 2016

Hodge has established that equitable tolling is appropriate. … However, it is far from clear that for purposes of qualifying for equitable tolling, diligence in seeking medical attention qualifies as diligence in pursuing legal remedies.

Kamppi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 30, 2020

The notes do not reflect that Petitioner mentioned experiencing previous 6 Ex. 7 clearly indicates that Petitioner received her flu vaccination on September 28, 2013, which was 113 days or three months and 22 days before … Temporal proximity between vaccination and onset of symptoms is a necessary component in establishing causation in non-Table cases, but without more, temporal proximity alone “fails to establish a reasonable basis for a vaccine

Sinclair v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 3, 2026

He stated that it was “well- established that GBS is triggered by an autoimmune response to an antecedent infection or other immune stimulant that provokes an immune reaction.” Id. at 6. The Chandrashekhar article Dr. … Further, Ho et al. states clearly, “The destruction of myelin involves anti-lipid autoantibodies, which can induce demyelination and prevent remyelination in mouse models of MS.” Id.

ConocoPhillips v. United States

73 Fed. Cl. 46 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 12, 2006

The PMM, described by the Federal Circuit as a “market publication” compiling “the monthly average sales figures” reported by refiners, id. at 1341 , certainly qualifies as such a source. … Clearly, it knew or should have known that the EPA clause was suspect. Again, this conduct is far more egregious than that which occurred in either Beta Systems, Inc. or Chris Berg[,Inc.]. Id.

Cgi Federal Inc. v. United States

118 Fed. Cl. 337 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 22, 2014

The plaintiff in Rex clearly lacked standing as it was neither an actual nor a prospective bidder. … In arguing that CGI does not qualify as a prospective bidder because it could have submitted a quote but chose not to, Defendant would have this Court discredit Mr.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. United States

44 Fed. Cl. 395 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 26, 1999

The unmistakability doctrine — a principle which dictates that immunity from future legislation (here, a tax) be clearly, unmistakably incorporated into a contract with the Government in order to be enforced — requires more … But legitimate expectations cannot include an expectation of immunity from legislation that imposes additional costs on activities from which the plaintiff derived a prior benefit.

Dodson Livestock Co. v. United States

42 Fed. Cl. 455 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 23, 1998

Dodson Livestock contends that the language of the claim submitted to the contracting officer clearly indicates that the complaint refers to all of the sheep that the company purchased. … The individual claimants, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional statute for a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. at 398 , 96 S.Ct. 948 .

Cybertech Group, Inc. v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 638 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 14, 2001

CGI’s further allegations of impropriety CGI avers that Intellidyne is a company with fewer than ten employees and, accord *642 ingly, it will be unable to provide the services under its delivery order unless it hires qualified … Clearly, the procedures set forth in this part of the FAR have no applicability whatsoever to the placement of a delivery order from an FSS schedule.

Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United States

76 Fed. Cl. 512 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 18, 2007

United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2003) (en bane) (“It is well established that statutes of limitations for causes of action against the United States, being conditions on the waiver of sovereign immunity, are jurisdictional … It is their position that they merely began the application process in order to qualify for incentives, such as the equity loan, and never intended the letters submitted to FmHA to be prepayment requests.

Redzepagic v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2025

She submits that GBS resulting from a flu vaccine is a “Table” injury, and “[t]herefore, a reputable medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and injury is clearly established and accepted by the government.” … While there is no definitive proof that petitioner suffered from an upper respiratory infection or that the symptoms she referred to as flu-like symptoms would qualify as an upper respiratory infection, Dr.

Gulf Group, Inc. v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 391 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 14, 2003

First, the Solicitation clearly placed Gulf on notice that the requested proposals related to an ID/IQ task order contract that covered disposal area management. … Thus, for example, the Corps found that Gulf was a “qualified contractor” which had considerable construction experience, including familiarity with earth construction and the use of heavy equipment.

Gardner-Cook v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

59 Fed. Cl. 38 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 25, 2003

Hyde is not on staff or affiliated with any healthcare institution, but states that he is “basically lab and research oriented” and “self-funded” in his research on post-hepatitis B immunization patients. … Hyde, M.D., is not qualified to render an opinion in this case;” “that Petitioner did not have clinical symptoms and signs of a neurologic injury and was not injured neurologically;” “that Petitioner’s arm and shoulder numbness

Hydraulics International, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2025

As described above, HII has not clearly demonstrated that it is or was capable of producing a compliant AGPU 1.1 system. … HII submits various other contentions, including that HII is an American small business, HII was found to be a qualified “compliant” producer of AGPU systems by the Army, and that continuing with the improper sole source

Phoenix Management, Inc. v. United States

127 Fed. Cl. 358 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2016

The Air Force’s plan here, to consider unknown offerors as acceptable, qualifies unknown offerors as eligible for selection but does not impart any other competitive benefit. … They cannot eliminate unknown offerors, however, as this would clearly constitute unfavorable treatment.

Peoples v. United States

101 Fed. Cl. 245 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2011

He is not physically qualified for (NPQ) for service in the Naval Reserve. … Thus, “when a correction board fails to correct an injustice clearly presented in the record before it, it is acting in violation of its mandate.” Yee v.