Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
0.96s
Canuto v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 19, 2016
He received a Hepatitis A immunization on July 18, 2002, and was seen for acute gastroenteritis on July 30, 2002. (Exs. 25-26.) … The short answer is that I find that Petitioners' theory in this case clearly does not satisfy the A !then test. A.
Cited 0 timesPublishedContracting, Consulting, Engineering LLC v. United States
104 Fed. Cl. 334 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 16, 2012
Fontanez’s qualifying years were from positions for which his résumé did not provide dates of service. See id. ¶ 7. The same is true for six of Mr. Garza’s qualifying years. See id. ¶ 8. This is telling. … If the protester fails in that regard, the protester cannot qualify for an injunction. Id.
Cited 78 timesPublishedCommon Ground Healthcare Cooperative v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 15, 2019
In conjunction with these reforms, the Act provided for the establishment of an American Health Benefit Exchange (“exchange”) in each state by January 1, 2014, to facilitate the purchase of “qualified health plans” by individuals … Indeed, the court very clearly emphasized that the premium tax credit program and the cost-sharing reduction program were separate and distinct. See California, 267 F. Supp. 3d at 1131.
Cited 0 timesPublished77 Fed. Cl. 522 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 26, 2007
Individual claimants, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional statute for a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. at 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349 . … The plaintiffs burden of proof also has been described as a “showing by cogent and clearly convincing evidence.” Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d at 1180 ; see also Colon v.
Cited 16 timesPublished52 Fed. Cl. 667 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 22, 2002
Because waivers of sovereign immunity to suit must be read against the backdrop of the no-interest rule, a general waiver as to attorneys’ fees, without more, does not waive the sovereign’s immunity from interest. … Plaintiffs also failed to establish a reasonable rate for NELF’s fees.
Cited 333 timesPublishedSamuels v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 2, 2020
Samuels’s initial presentation was defined, since it clearly later progressed into MS. Id. at 51, 56. Dr. … immune response.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMartinez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 4, 2023
Moy, there is nothing offered in this case “establishing how immune cells can get into the [central nervous system] in the absence of an actual ‘break’ in the blood-brain barrier.” Id. C. … The Chief Special Master’s opinion clearly indicates that he considered all of the testimony.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLamirage, Inc. v. United States
44 Fed. Cl. 192 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 17, 1999
The record before the court also clearly establishes that the Exhibit A inventory list included in the executed 1994 Purchase Agreement did not include a liquor license or a cabaret permit. … United States, 936 F.2d at 1270 . 2 The record clearly establishes that the 1994 Purchase Agreement, drafted and *202 signed by the plaintiffs, was clear on its face, and that the attached inventory list of property to be
Cited 22 timesPublishedAntalosky v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2022
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a non-Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal Circuit in Althen.
Cited 0 timesPublished36 Fed. Cl. 148 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 3, 1996
The Tucker Act’s waiver of immunity over implied government contract claims is limited. … These cases establish a general right to recover on a retention of benefits theory when a partially performed contract is rescinded for illegality.
Vacated by Timothy A. Janowsky and Peggy J. Janowsky v. United States, 133 F.3d 888 (1998)Cited 6 timesPublished108 Fed. Cl. 331 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 21, 2012
Plaintiff asserted at his discharge hearing that he contacted an attorney in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps to seek legal advice regarding his bar to reenlistment, but that by the time he was able to establish regular … Plaintiff alleges that the Army violated these provisions when it discharged him “within two years of qualifying for retirement.”
Cited 9 timesPublished103 Fed. Cl. 55 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 23, 2012
Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the best interest of the Army. … Thus, a soldier separated under an honorable or general discharge is enti- *62 tied to veterans’ benefits if he otherwise qualifies for such benefits under the law.
Cited 6 timesPublished28 Fed. Cl. 812 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 23, 1993
No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183, established the RTC as an instrumentality of the United States. 12 U.S.C. § 1441a(b)(l)(B) (Supp. I 1990). … In other words, the plaintiff has demonstrated no waiver of sovereign immunity. See United States v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedAmerican Renovation & Construction Co. v. United States
65 Fed. Cl. 254 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2005
Intervenor-Applicant’s assertion that RCFC 24 provides an independent basis for jurisdiction, is clearly incorrect. … The substance of Intervenor-Applicant’s complaint clearly seeks to establish that it is the owner by assignment of the CK006 Contract, and that it was damaged by the government’s allegedly wrongful termination.
Cited 14 timesPublished52 Fed. Cl. 736 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 17, 2002
The only remaining question is whether the jurisdictional decision issued by Judge Bruggink on November 27, 2000, qualifies as a decision “on the merits.” … Plaintiff asserts that reasonable cause was not established to authorize a search conducted at night. . See supra note 4. . Mr.
Cited 8 timesPublished54 Fed. Cl. 158 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 11, 2002
A claimant sues the United States by means of a *164 waiver of sovereign immunity; waivers of sovereign immunity must be explicit; and “any statute that creates a waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed in … s option for a plaintiff to elect statutory damages. “ ‘[W]hen two statutes are capable of co-existence ... it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each
Cited 10 timesPublishedDiversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. v. United States
110 Fed. Cl. 612 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 26, 2013
The CDA, as a "waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign." O)yjfv. UnitedStates, 545 U.S. 596, 601-02 (2005); Winter v. FloorPro, Inc., 570 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. … Notably, these jurisdictional requirements were recently clearly stated and applied in dismissing another Complaint by plaintiff. 1n Dz'versifz`ed Maz'ntenance Syste)ns, Inc. v. United States, 103 Fed.
Cited 5 timesPublishedHolt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 16, 2015
Wiznitzer to be the most qualified and reliable witness. … Clearly, Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublished55 Fed. Cl. 157 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 10, 2003
Regardless, plaintiff eventually was informed that she qualified for no benefits under the SBP. … Plaintiff attempts to establish her lack of knowledge in several ways.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCommunity Health Choice, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 15, 2019
In conjunction with these reforms, the Act provided for the establishment of an American Health Benefit Exchange (“exchange”) in each state by January 1, 2014, to facilitate the purchase of “qualified health plans” by individuals … The Tucker Act, the principal statute governing the jurisdiction of this court, waives sovereign immunity for claims against the United States, not sounding in tort, that are founded upon the United States Constitution, a
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna