Case law

Wittner ex rel. Wittner v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

43 Fed. Cl. 199 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 26, 1999

Secretary of DHHS, 940 F.2d 1518, 1528 (Fed.Cir.1991). (2) Establishing Entitlement Under the Vaccine Act Assuming certain prerequisites have been met which are not at issue here, a petitioner can establish a right to compensation … Nothing on this list establishes that the special master’s decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Speed v. United States

97 Fed. Cl. 58 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 28, 2011

Speed had not established a waiver of sovereign immunity which would allow her breach of contract claim against the United States to proceed in federal district court. … To establish subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit against the federal government, a plaintiff must show both a “waiv[er of] sovereign immunity together with a claim falling within the terms of the waiver.”

Cheryl Koehn, as Mother and Next Friend of Vanessia Koehn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2013

McCabe is qualified to discuss immunologic principles and that expertise naturally fits in the discussion of theory under prong one of Althen. … These vaccinations did not clearly exacerbate Vanessia’s sJIA as might be expected if the Gardasil vaccine were causative.

Hoag v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

42 Fed. Cl. 238 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 15, 1998

the established medical record. … Clearly, petitioners failed to mount any persuasive case of causation in fact. Hoag v. Sec’y DHHS, No. 94-67V, slip op. at 6 n. 5 (citations omitted).

Means v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 3, 2015

To establish that a condition was significantly aggravated by a covered vaccine, petitioner must establish, by preponderant evidence: (1) the person’s condition prior to administration of the vaccine, (2) the person … of the immune system.

Zhengxing v. United States

71 Fed. Cl. 732 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 9, 2006

Rather, BPAs are “a simplified method of filling anticipated repetitive needs for supplies or services by establishing ‘charge accounts’ with qualified sources of supply.” 48 C.F.R. § 13.303-1 (a). … ‘charge accounts’ with qualified sources of supply.” 48 C.F.R. § 13.303-1 .

Harris v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 21, 2023

Benson stresses that the link between infection and GBS is clearly much stronger. (Id. … Thus, while he would still clearly find it irregular, it is far from clear that Dr.

Gill v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 2014

masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly … Henry DelaTorre, petitioner’s new primary care physician, wrote, “Symptoms of VIDs [variable immune deficiency syndrome] started after she had H1N1 virus and later got the Flu/H1N1 immunization.

Reinhardt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 10, 2021

Vartanian is clearly qualified to opine on the matters before the court, Dr. Cestari is one of approximately ten neuro-ophthalmology specialists in the United States. … Molecular mimicry is also a well-established theory in the Vaccine Program and has been persuasively linked to different immune-mediated conditions. See e.g. W.C. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.

Schafer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 19, 2021

Petitioner argues his pain began immediately and “clearly within 48 hours of the vaccination.” Pet. Mot. at 2. … See Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278. 12  The undersigned finds the evidence discussed in this Ruling qualifies as preponderant evidence to show the flu vaccine caused petitioner

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

39 Fed. Cl. 632 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 25, 1997

Temporal association of the onset of the injury with the vaccination is not sufficient to establish causation-in-fact. See Grant, 956 F.2d at 1148 ; Strother, 21 Cl.Ct. at 369 . … Furthermore, upon a review of the entire record in this case, the Court finds that the Special Master considered all the relevant evidence, drew reasonable inferences, and clearly articulated a rational basis for his decision

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

29 Fed. Cl. 339 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 21, 1993

is immune from an interest award.” … The traditional rule has been codified for the Court of Federal Claims at 28 U.S.C. § 2516 (a). 3 Clearly, in the Program there is no contract.

First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v. United States

42 Fed. Cl. 599 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 20, 1998

The lack of a rule allowing shareholder derivative actions follows this Court’s tenet that no jurisdiction exists absent a clearly expressed waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States. 11 Mitchell, 445 U.S. at 538 … However, in First Hartford’s situation, no shareholder has established jurisdiction under the Tucker Act or through any exception to the requirement that sovereign immunity be waived.

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

55 Fed. Cl. 791 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2003

Keith could establish her case was with a qualified, certified, and well-credentialed medical doctor who would investigate the medical records and the Petitioner’s materials. … Were the Special Master to find that this coincidence alone established actual causation, her findings would indeed have been clearly erroneous. Ms. Keith needed to do more than show a proximate temporal association.

Flowers v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 8, 2024

In her view, the November 6, 2018, record definitively establishes that her GBS qualifies as a Table injury. Id. … According to the CSM, “this occurs only where other factors establish that some synergistic combination of causes involving the vaccine and the claimant’s own preexisting health likely caused a faster immune stimulation process

Solak v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 12, 2021

Solak’s scratchy throat, nasal congestion, and shortness of breath are clearly not features that are seen in immune complex disease.” Id. … Dhillon wrote that he “explained to her I doubt food allergy can qualify as disability.” Ex. 10 at 1. On September 1, 2015, Dr.

Schow v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 27, 2025

While the Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to allow a suit for money damages, United States v. … Clearly, he was not, because he did not satisfy the prerequisites for such a promotion: presidential appointment and confirmation by the Senate.

Sanders v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 38 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 9, 1995

Sanders failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. We must do likewise. This court has held, in unequivocal terms, that general jurisdictional statutes may not act to waive sovereign immunity. Lonsdale v. … Plaintiff has failed to establish either that the United States unequivocally waived its sovereign immunity or that this court is vested with jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims.

Orgel-Olson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 20, 2022

role that innate immunity plays in auto-immune diseases is less clear. … But clearly it was driven by the skin biopsy.” (Tr. 101-02.) Dr. Tornatore deferred to Dr.

Red River Service Corp. v. United States

60 Fed. Cl. 532 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2004

The proper forum for further adjudication of SBA administrative decisions clearly lies with a United States District Court. See 15 U.S.C. § 634 (b); see also DSE, Inc. v. … Red River Has Established That It Is An “Interested Party” In This Case.