Case law

Parker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 5, 2025

Carr was qualified as an expert in orthopedic surgery and sports medicine. Tr. at 120. … Leist was qualified as an expert in neurology and neuroimmunology. Tr. at 146.

JWK International Corp. v. United States

49 Fed. Cl. 371 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 10, 2001

Specifically, JWK averred that LTM was no more than a “front” for IS, which was not qualified to compete for LOT III because IS was not a small business. AR 2663-65. … The SSP and the Solicitation clearly stated the factors to be considered and lucidly established that JWK’s lack of CPARS data was neither a favorable or unfavorable factor in its decision, but merely a fact of the proposal

Borgelt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 2, 2026

on the same day of her flu immunization…”). … Matiello established, that relapse was consistent with the expected course a person with CIDP of the kind Petitioner had would experience, rather than the by-product of vaccine-induced immune stimulation (even if the flu

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. United States

44 Fed. Cl. 372 · 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.

Starnes v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 5, 2022

The Tucker Act serves as a waiver of sovereign immunity for “certain claims for monetary relief against the United States,” but it does not create a right to relief itself. Estes Express Lines v. … Several claims in the Complaint clearly sound in tort. Plaintiff appears to assert a personal injury tort claim for his broken leg. See Compl.

Austin v. United States

118 Fed. Cl. 776 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 10, 2014

Defendant breached a loan document when it charged plaintiffs escrow, insofar as the HUD settlement statement clearly indicates plaintiffs would not be charged escrow. 12. … Robinson on April 22, 2011 and had yet to enter into a new contract with a qualified contractor.

Devtech Systems, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 1, 2025

Further, even if the Agency erred in its determination that Veritas’s project manager was qualified, DevTech cannot establish prejudice because its proposed project manager suffers from the same purported deficiencies—if … Peters was qualified. First, based on Ms. Peters’s resume entries, the Agency was well within its discretion to find that Ms. Peters was qualified.

Century Exploration New Orleans, LLC v. United States

110 Fed. Cl. 148 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 21, 2013

However, there is no express term in the lease that immunizes them from future increases in their costs of performance. See Bradley v. Chiron Corp., 136 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed. … While those documents are referred to as “NTLs,” each NTL clearly states that it is a “Notice to Lessees and Operators.” See, e.g., Def.’s Ex. 8 at A253.

frazer/exton Development, L.P. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 8, 2019

Frazer/Exton relies on the September 11, 2017 Environmental Covenant and Pennsylvania law to establish its current property interest in the site. Opp’n Ex. 1 ¶ 8. … Without having to identify the precise date, Frazer/Exton and Whiteland clearly had such knowledge by no later than 2011, when Frazer/Exton completed the required remediation.

Curry v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 16, 2025

in cases where a claimant clearly fails at least one). … First, Respondent has clearly established that urinary and bladder issues can be presenting symptoms of TM.

Piper v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

29 Fed. Cl. 628 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 23, 1993

that the cumulative evidence presented in the case, including the testimony of a credible parent, especially when supported by the parent’s personal calendar entry and the administering physician’s billing statement for immunization … establish both the amount of wages paid and the time of such payment.

Pacific Wind LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 6, 2020

Pacific Wind clearly satisfies the standing requirements. The Government “may indeed be obliged to follow a statute or regulation regardless of whether it has a contractual duty to perform.” ARRA Energy Co. I, 97 Fed. … In short, the Government gains no immunity for its actions by relying on an agreement to which it was not a party.

Novarro v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2014

In rare cases, the activation of the immune system is misdirected and both the humoral and cellular arms of the immune system attack the nervous system. Id. … Tornatore’s credentials render this portion of his opinion generally unreliable, and I find that he is qualified to opine on the topic at hand.

Shearer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2020

Respondent opposed petitioner’s application for fees and submitted that petitioner failed to establish a reasonable basis for his claim. Id. at 1. … Petitioner submitted, “These facts clearly establish” that petitioner’s claim was brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Id.

Chandler v. States

47 Fed. Cl. 106 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2000

United States, the court acknowledged the Dehne case, but found section 1552 to be pay-mandating in circumstances in which a claimant can qualify for compensation after a change of records. … “The statute of limitations is an express limitation on the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.” Hart v.

Pipes v. United States

134 Fed. Cl. 380 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 13, 2017

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving any deficiency by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence.” Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted). … Second, Plaintiff’s participation in the SFIP does not qualify as IDT. 5/8/17 Gov’t Mot. at 11.

Jacobs Technology Inc. v. United States

100 Fed. Cl. 186 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2011

or establish a schedule for full operating capability. … GAO established that these differences had a material impact on the competition.

Cavalier Clothes, Inc. v. United States

51 Fed. Cl. 399 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 24, 2001

Clearly, Dawco was in an ideal position to detail all its costs. Or, at least, it could have, and should have, been. … Clearly, no similar evidence was introduced in the case at bar.

Agwiak v. United States

64 Fed. Cl. 203 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 18, 2005

The Court finds that Bethel is an established community or suitable place of residence based on its population of 5,471 people. Therefore, Bethel cannot qualify as remote under 5 U.S.C. § 5942 . b. … Therefore, the first prong of 5 C.F.R. § 591.306 (a)(2) is clearly not fulfilled. Plaintiffs do, however, meet the second prong of 5 C.F.R. § 591.306 (a)(2).

Perfect Form Manufacturing LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 20, 2022

This statute “waives the United States’ sovereign immunity from refund suits.” Chi. Milwaukee Corp. v. United States, 40 F.3d 373, 374 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). … In short, satisfying § 6416(a) qualifies a taxpayer to receive a refund for an overpayment of an excise tax. See 26 U.S.C. § 6416(a) (“Condition to allowance”); see also Andrew Jergens Co. v.