Case law

Gross v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 17, 2022

Clearly GBS and CIDP are two different diseases with different time courses, different response[s] to treatment, different prognosis, and different pathogenesis.” Resp. Ex. E at 1. … The four criteria are (1) “establishment of an epidemiological association between the infectious agent and the immune-mediated disease;” (2) “identification of T cells or antibodies directed against the patient’s target

Woodard v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

31 Fed. Cl. 617 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 14, 1994

Under § 13 of the Act, a petitioner may establish a table injury or aggravation by establishing three elements: first, that the petitioner received one of the covered childhood vaccines; second, that the petitioner subsequently … Lockman’s understanding of the Academy’s guidelines, a “static, stable neurological abnormality is not a contraindication to DPT immunization.” Tr. at 205. *626 Dr.

District of Columbia Water and Sewer v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 10, 2021

of the Home unless such action is clearly to the best interest of the old soldiers who are the beneficiaries of the trust. … Pena 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (“[W]hen confronted with a purported waiver of the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity, the Court will ‘constru[e] ambiguities in favor of immunity.”

Contino v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 8, 2019

She has frequently served as an expert witness in civil litigation and in the Vaccine program, where she has previously been qualified as an expert in immunology. In this case, petitioner proffered and I accepted Dr. … In the present case, petitioner does not establish that she has suffered a Table injury.

Leming v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 29, 2022

Grimes also recorded that A.L.’s mother was “still . . . concern[ed]” about “immune dysfunction, and hesitant to consider further immunizations for [A.L.].” … Therefore, the court of appeals held, they did not qualify as “residual effects” or “complications” of his thrombocytopenia. Id.

Sloan v. United States

36 Fed. Cl. 163 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 26, 1996

Plaintiff contends his termination from the Corps of Engineers was an involuntary separation qualifying him for severance pay under 5 U.S.C. § 5595 . … Under the Tucker Act, plaintiff must allege a claim for damages due to government action under an express or implied contract, or a money mandating statutory or constitutional provision to establish jurisdiction in this court

Chaney v. United States

45 Fed. Cl. 309 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 1999

. *313 Once jurisdiction is challenged by the court or the opposing party, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. McNutt v. … In sum, although it is evident from their filings that the plaintiffs are clearly frustrated by their dealings with the IRS, their allegations regarding Mr. Martucci and Ms.

Alverson v. United States

88 Fed. Cl. 331 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 21, 2009

A court must determine for itself whether a group is too gender-mixed to qualify for an Equal Pay Act claim. See Hofmister v. Miss. … The numbers in this case are not so clearly gender-mixed that recovery under the Act must be precluded as a matter of law.

Bynum v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2024

those with immune dysfunction.” … To qualify, a person must have at least three of these criteria and no other explanation for the disease. Exhibit 43 (Vivino) at 29.

Filosa v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 609 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 2006

Consent must occur through an unequivocal, express waiver of sovereign immunity. Id. … In this case, Plaintiffs have submitted evidence establishing that the counsel they retained are qualified. See Ex. F (containing information on firm and individual counsel). Plaintiffs’ counsel are Mr.

Allegheny Technologies Incorporated v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 17, 2018

The component of Medicare Part D that provides subsidies to qualifying, employer-sponsored health plans through the RDS program is implemented in 42 C.F.R. §§ 423.880-.894.1 Health plans are considered “qualified” if they … Because [the plaintiff] can bring an action under the Tucker Act or Little Tucker Act to redress the allegedly improper exaction, there is no waiver of sovereign immunity under the APA.”

Kozel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 2, 2018

Kozel’s] autonomic and immune system dysfunctions were caused by his receipt of, and reaction to, the [human papillomavirus] vaccine.” Id. In opposing Mr. … But, as noted above, the evidentiary 3 threshold for establishing reasonable basis is less than the preponderance of the evidence. Dr.

Spayde v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 23, 2021

He added that “while the classic manifestation of [GBS] may not yet be observable, the antigen or antigens may have induced the immune system to respond[,] initiating a complex reaction within the entire immune system of … He opined that she “clearly suffered a viral illness and clearly had an abnormal spinal fluid, [and] had a borderline electrophysiologic study.” Tr. 271.

Consolidation Coal Co. v. United States

102 Fed. Cl. 489 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 8, 2011

The stay sought by plaintiffs is clearly indefinite. Plaintiffs ask the Court to delay litigation of these cases while another case, Coal River Energy LLC v. … Staying litigation in order to let plaintiffs have a second bite at the apple does not establish a compelling need.

Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States

130 Fed. Cl. 436 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 9, 2017

--The Secretary shall establish and administer a program of risk corridors for calendar years 2014, 2015, and 2016 under which a qualified health plan offered in the individual or small … The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2012), waives sovereign immunity for claims predicated on the Constitution, a federal statute or regulation, or a contract with the Government.

Electrolux Holdings, Inc. v. United States

71 Fed. Cl. 748 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2006

Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 , 110 S.Ct. 596 , 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (holding that the burden is on the party seeking to exercise jurisdiction by clearly alleging facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction). … Plaintiffs, however, bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch.

Brook v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 11, 2015

Bellanti 23 has not established, nor even attempted to establish, that N.B. actually had a mitochondrial dysfunction. Although Dr. … Thus, Petitioners’ claim clearly fails under Althen Prong 1. C.

McKing Consulting Corp. v. United States

78 Fed. Cl. 715 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 4, 2007

Consequently, McKing has not presented sufficient evidence in the record that the e-mail correspondence establishes bad faith, Am-Pro, 281 F.3d at 1243 (requiring clear and convincing evidence to establish agency bad faith … as well as for other qualifying factors.

Ulysses, Inc. v. United States

110 Fed. Cl. 618 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2013

• “[W]e clearly indicated that we have manufactured the next higher assembly, which is the equipment itself and which obviously qualifies us to make the subject item. … The record establishes that Plaintiff submitted a claim believing it was qualified to manufacture the 112 Part based on a different interpretation of what constituted an approved source.

Alaska Central Express, Inc. v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 510 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 19, 2001

Instead, qualified carriers unilaterally claim what appears to be a quasi-entitlement to receive an equitable distribution of mail that would otherwise go to mainline carriers. … United States, 342 U.S. 25, 27 , 72 S.Ct. 17 , 96 L.Ed. 26 (1951) (“[Sjtatutes which waive immunity of the United States from suit are to be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign.”); AFGE, 258 F.3d at 1301.