Case law

Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 6, 2023

Information, https://www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/wi/medicare.htm (last accessed Oct. 19, 2023) (“Everyone eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”) benefits is also eligible for Medicare after a 12-month qualifying … The records do not clearly document a worsening of Crohn’s symptoms over time or obstacles in returning to the gastroenterologist, however, nor do they document any preexisting pain, limited range of motion, or other dysfunction

GASA, Inc. v. United States

79 Fed. Cl. 325 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 28, 2007

Clearly, it did not. 3. … Third, the measure of damages must be reasonably certain, although if “a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.” Glendale Fed. Bank, FSB v.

Henley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 10, 2019

On April 14, 2015, established care with a primary care physician (“PCP”). Pet. Ex. 2 at 1. … On May 15, 2015, a hepatitis B surface test was positive for immunity to hepatitis B. Pet. Ex. 1 at 9.

Olson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 30, 2022

The nurse informed petitioner that “extended pain and difficulty raising the left arm can happen at times after an immunization. … As such, petitioner has established this criterion by preponderant evidence. e.

Marine Industrial Construction, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 29, 2020

Plaintiff provides no authority stating the Court must abandon the established litigation practice of offering alternative arguments; therefore the government did not waive its objection to Paragraph 4E by using the same … FRE 701 requires “if a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness

Teets v. United States

29 Fed. Cl. 697 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 5, 1993

Clearly, plaintiff’s role as President was more limited than that of most who bear the title. However, the record reveals that his office was far from titular. … However, the court rejected this argument: The fact that the Raddings may also have qualified as responsible officers does not acquit plaintiff.

Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2018

Co., 144 F.R.D. 225, 232 (D.N.J. 1992) (“Mere status as an insurer or an insured is not enough to establish a commonality of interest.”). … Cal. 1995) (explaining that mandated exchanges of information in the insurance context do not qualify as communications in furtherance of a common interest).

Adkins v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 26, 2018

Taxpayers bear the burden of establishing their entitlement to a theft loss deduction. … While Ponzi schemes and pump-and-dump schemes are both fraudulent arrangements that serve to deprive investors of funds they invested, the IRS has clearly 46 Because plaintiffs have not demonstrated that

Golden It, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 4, 2022

But that provision clearly refers to a substantive evaluation of the identified proposed key personnel. … The questioner asserted that “Offerors may not present qualified personnel if they lack a specific certification or fall short of the minimum years of experience.” Id.

Lang v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 5, 2021

Winell believes that petitioner has failed to establish onset of pain within 48 hours. (Id.) Dr. … Winell notes that petitioner’s MRI findings show a shoulder pathology caused by a degenerative condition; not a vaccine- mediated immune regulated inflammatory response. (Ex. C, p. 1.)

KOTIS ASSOCIATES, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 2025

Cir. 1988) (rejecting, based on Chevron deference, the argument that the Railbanking Provision “requires the [STB] to transfer rights-of-way to qualified trail operators even when the railroad opposes such use”). … The NITU clearly adopts the Survey Map on which plaintiffs rely.

C. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 8, 2024

but qualifying for a limited exception and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for his or her injury. … Delzer involved a petitioner who treated for nearly four months – but then continued PT for a clearly different condition for over two years without complaining of left shoulder pain. Delzer, 2019 WL 994582, at *2.

A. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 12, 2021

After holding an entitlement hearing, I issued an opinion concluding that B.A. had established her entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act. … Once the case moved into the damages phase, B.A. filed updated medical records from her established providers. Pet. Exs. 134-44, 147-52, 154, 157-58.

Simmons v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 2, 2024

Caselaw in the Vaccine Program and elsewhere clearly establishes that, where a litigant would have discovered some piece of information through reasonably diligent attempts to find it, the litigant cannot rely upon the lack … However, the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims and the Vaccine Rules clearly dictate otherwise.

Arnold v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 22, 2023

If ever there is a case falling into the “rare and exceptional” category meriting a downward adjustment to the lodestar figure, this matter qualifies. … In support of plaintiffs’ URA application, counsel appended over 100 pages of settlement-related correspondence clearly marked “Confidential Settlement Communication Subject to FRE 408” dated August 6, 2021.

Seventh Dimension, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 11, 2022

The FAR clearly permits a cancellation for such purposes at the very least up until contract award — i.e., “regardless of the stage of the acquisition.” Id. … Nor does the court purport to establish such a presumption.”); MORI Assocs., 102 Fed.

Dickson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 5, 2019

That rate is in turn determined by the “forum rule,” which bases the award rate on rates paid to similarly qualified attorneys in the forum where the relevant court sits (Washington, D.C., for Vaccine Program cases). … Brown is entitled to the forum rate under the test established by the Federal Circuit in Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed.

Information Systems & Networks Corporation v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 3, 2018

A witness who is qualified by “knowledge, skill, expertise, training, or education” may testify in the form of an opinion and is considered an expert. Fed. R. Evid. 702. … Foote’s resume, included as part of his report, establishes that he has provided financial advisory services at the firm of Aronson LLC since 1996 and that he is a licensed accountant.

Allicock v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 28, 2016

Allicock could establish significant aggravation of M.A.’s condition, observing that his developmental delay diagnosis was “well established” prior to the May 2012 vaccinations. ECF No. 15 at 12. … That rate is in turn determined by the “forum rule,” which bases the award rate on rates paid to similarly qualified attorneys in the forum where the relevant court sits (Washington, DC for Vaccine Program cases).

Mw Builders, Inc. v. United States

134 Fed. Cl. 469 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 18, 2017

To establish a breach of the duty to cooperate, MW Builders must establish that the delay was the fault of the Army Corps. Gov’t Post Tr. Br. at 99. … Campbell was not qualified to testify as an expert, but could testify about the work he performed as a lay witness.