Case law

Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 14, 2018

Höke explained that after the peak immune response after a booster vaccination, the data “clearly shows that [a patient has] very high levels of antibody response six months out and even much longer . . . with certain vaccinations … Höke’s opinion, because he did not clearly define the applicable onset window. Dr.

Joann Mostovoy and Vadim Mostovoy, in Their Own Right and as Best Friends of Their Son, Vjm v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2013

Deisher states that in 1989, a second dose of MMR was added to the childhood immunization schedule. … Deisher is clearly familiar with this report—which was filed by petitioner and discussed directly by Dr.

Peterson Industrial Depot, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 29, 2018

Plaintiff PID Lacks Standing to Sue the United States The Tucker Act generally provides for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction over certain claims and a waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity over those … Cir. 2002) (“‘The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing [the] elements [of standing].’” (internal quotations omitted)).

Simpson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 5, 2025

Even Petitioner’s complaints in May of 2015 could be attributed to her GBS because “she clearly had distal axonal degeneration,” which “these patients do no recover fully from.” Tr. 30:21-24. Dr. … 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. See id.

Harvard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 22, 2020

In the Stipulation, Respondent states that “[t]here is not a preponderance of evidence demonstrating that petitioner’s SIRVA is due to a factor unrelated to her immunization” and “[a]ccordingly, petitioner is entitled to … There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein e,cpressly stated and clearly agreed to.

Martin v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 2017

KM received the DTaP, IPV, Hib, PCV and rotavirus immunizations on August 23, 2013. 3. The vaccines were administered within the United States. 4. … There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to.

Marathon Oil Co. v. United States

42 Fed. Cl. 267 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 17, 1998

In this case, the purpose of the closing agreements is to establish, once and for all, plaintiffs liability for windfall profit tax. … Each closing agreement is just one page long, and clearly indicates the stat *278 utory authority undergirding the agreement.

Kenzora v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

126 Fed. Cl. 588 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 25, 2016

Id. 4 liquidate or modify the annuity payment called for under the May 2013 Judgment, so that petitioner could qualify for Medicaid to help cover the additional monthly … And so, the special master did not err in finding that petitioner failed to establish changed circumstances as required by RCFC 60(b)(5).

Collier v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 17, 2018

Petitioner’s symptoms began more than 14 weeks (101 days) after flu vaccine, and clearly fall outside of the Table. … In summary, Petitioner has not established that he possessed a reasonable basis for the claims raised in the petition.

Idea International, Inc. v. United States

74 Fed. Cl. 129 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 21, 2006

Moreover, despite its missteps, DoDEA apparently succeeded in selecting a qualified contractor team at a reasonable price. … However, the TEB also stated that IDEA “clearly provided the most thorough description of services and gave strong evidence of an established program model focusing on the relationship between content standards and home based

Decastro v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 12, 2024

Patel’s assertion that it can be triggered by an active immune response to vaccination. (Id. at 8-9.) … Conclusion Petitioner has clearly suffered and she has my sympathy.

North American Construction Corp. v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 73 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 1, 2003

Pursuant to the terms of the regulation, that profit clearly belongs to the entity which actually performed the work. GSAR § 552.243-71(2). NACC’s reliance upon Regan/Nager Constr. … In the face of such qualifying language, and in the absence of any evidence that it was either the practice or custom of the government to so extend the effect of those negotiations, or that plaintiffs proposed resolution

Centech Group, Inc. v. United States

78 Fed. Cl. 496 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 25, 2007

Plaintiffs standing must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748 . … The fact that an agency procurement action was taken as corrective action resulting from a GAO bid protest does not immunize that action from judicial review.

Rq Squared, LLC v. United States

119 Fed. Cl. 751 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 14, 2015

Nonetheless, “the court should only grant a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings if the defendant is clearly entitled to judgment on the basis of the facts as the plaintiff has presented them.” … Cl. 615, 626 (2007) (stating that the Federal Circuit “has not established criteria to consider in evaluating a motion for discovery under RCFC 56([d])” (citing Theisen Vending Co. v. United States, 58 Fed.

Keener v. United States

76 Fed. Cl. 455 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 18, 2007

It is well-established that the partnership prong of an affected item — in' this case, the proper construction of section 6229(a) — must be determined first in a unified partnership proceeding. … Indeed, it would be difficult to envision otherwise, particularly since partnerships themselves do not qualify as taxpayers for purposes of the Code.

Round Valley Indian Tribes v. United States

97 Fed. Cl. 500 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 23, 2011

The Court of Claims also determined that the ICCA’s legislative history established that Congress clearly intended in circumstances such as we have here, to confer upon the Indian Claims Commission jurisdiction to heai' and … Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 226 , 103 S.Ct. 2961 , 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983) (“Because the statutes and regulations at issue ... clearly establish fiduciary obligations of the Government in the management and operation of Indian

Nunez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2019

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. See id. (internal citations omitted). … Conclusion Petitioners’ claim fails because they did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that vaccines can trigger an immune response analogous to infections in vulnerable infants as defined by the Triple

Hansen v. United States

65 Fed. Cl. 76 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 11, 2005

Clearly, the Brandéis dissent helps give context to the majority opinion in Portsmouth . … Proof of government intent to invade property is not essential to establish a compensable takings claim, provided causation is demonstrated. However, these cases did not state the test clearly.

Doe v. United States

35 Fed. Cl. 85 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 29, 1996

N. nor Ms. 0. was qualified to render an expert opinion on *99 Jane’s credibility, as the Legal Advisor explained to the board. … Doe’s failure to present reliable evidence clearly contradicting the accusations made by his daughter properly resulted in the board’s treatment of those accusations, in hearsay form, as “substantial evidence” supporting

Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States

134 Fed. Cl. 680 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 4, 2017

In addition, plaintiffs claim that documents such as FHFA00038592 and FHFA00077771 demonstrate that plaintiffs’ need for the information “was clearly sufficient to overcome the Government’s qualified deliberative process … Lastly, RCFC 26(c) establishes the parameters of court-ordered protective orders: (1) In General. A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order.