Case law

Grice v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

36 Fed. Cl. 114 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 21, 1996

Both petitioners and respondent agree on this well established rationale behind the Act. … In McGowan , this court held that the Vaccine Act is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, and that “[t]he court cannot expand on the waiver of sovereign immunity explicitly stated in the statute.” Id.

Joseph J. Froio v. Robert A. McDonald

27 Vet. App. 352 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 28, 2015

The Secretary maintained at oral argument that, because EAJA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, it is the appellant's burden to establish that EAJA expressly allows an award for work performed in an educational setting and … Clearly such an approach is not contemplated by EAJA.

Copenhaver v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 21, 2016

The IOM stated that “All controlled studies that have compared immunized versus nonimmunized children have found either no association or a decreased risk of SIDS among immunized children.” … The Copenhavers most clearly express their theory on page 10 of their posthearing brief.

Gerhardt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 23, 2014

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 … Engler, an allergist-immunologist and then-Director of the VHC (making her especially qualified to consider the role a vaccination might play in an individual’s subsequent health).

Kannady v. United States

124 Fed. Cl. 253 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 20, 2015

Rather, the plaintiff’s contract to sell his home establishes that he sold his home to a private buyer on December 31, 2009. See PA 6. … The statute clearly states that the Secretary’s decisions are immune from judicial review, and as such, this court does not have authority to subvert Congress’s unambiguous intent.

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

19 Cl. Ct. 439 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1990

The total number of hours that are clearly noncompensable is 36.4. … I am not an immunization expert.” Tr. at 85.

Wolverine Supply, Inc. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,676 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 13, 1989

This activity, unlike the agencies in the L’Enfant Plaza, Breitbeck, and Ford, Powell & Carson cases was not established by statute. The CBF was established by regulation. … appropriated funds and thus sovereign immunity was not to be removed as to these activities.

Dekalb County, Georgia v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 681 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 28, 2013

Instead, the term is qualified, and suggests that Congress intended to limit its waiver to fees that were imposed in connection with the provision of a service. … clearly in any statutory text.”).

Lawler v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 53 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 8, 1988

Both 26 U.S.C. § 7430 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 constitute waivers of traditional immunity enjoyed by the sovereign. … The declaration submitted by plaintiff’s counsel clearly establishes that he does possess the necessary degree of specialized skill and knowledge in taxation and Internal Revenue Code matters to qualify as a specialist in

Taylor v. United States

57 Fed. Cl. 313 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 16, 2003

“It is well established that statutes of limitations for causes of action against the United States, being conditions on the waiver of sovereign immunity, are jurisdictional in nature.” … the six-year statute of limitations period established by 28 U.S.C. § 2501 .

Shore v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 829 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 21, 1992

Such a conclusion clearly flies in the face of Flora, which simply and clearly “requires full payment of the assessment.” Flora, 362 U.S. at 177, 80 S.Ct. at 647 (emphasis added). … Since this is a fundamental legal principle which is clearly established in Rule 8(a) of the Rules of the United States Claims Court, 18 this court cannot yield to sympathy for plaintiffs’ oversight or neglect in adequate

Xp Vehicles, Inc. v. United States

121 Fed. Cl. 770 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 5, 2015

performed in the United States of qualifying vehicles, ultra efficient vehicles, and qualifying components. 42 U.S.C. § 17013(b). … “The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). A waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.”

Clarke v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 6, 2026

Shafrir’s practice involves many patients with neuro-immune disorders). Thus, Dr. Shafrir is qualified to opine about pediatric epilepsies. However, Dr. … Clarke has not established that she is entitled to compensation based upon the adaptive immune system / antibody-based theory. VIII.

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

25 Cl. Ct. 421 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 3, 1992

The Program was established in 1986 as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, Pub.L. No. 99-660, Title III, § 311(a), 100 Stat. 3755 . … Thereafter she had difficulty in finding qualified counsel, and difficulties in obtaining necessary records to support a claim under the Pro *423 gram. The petition for compensation was filed on February 13, 1991.

Knight v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 243 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 5, 2002

Privity of contract is a jurisdictional prerequisite insofar as when it is established, the court can then find that there has been a waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the government. … In other words, because of the presence of the term “qualified,” paragraph 6 presents the possibilities that: (1) all of LNC staff would be qualified and thus offered employment; (2) some of LNC staff would be qualified and

Frank S. Scott, Jr. v. The United States. Alvin C. Warnick and Barbara W. Warnick v. The United States

432 F.2d 1388 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 16, 1970

With this finding the Government concurs and has now conceded that, absent the privileges and immunities accorded under the treaty, both Scott and Warnick would be qualified for the benefits of § 911(a) (1). … The cited regulation [Treas.Reg. § 1.911-1 (a) (2)] does not clearly provide any such requirement.

Jennette v. United States

77 Fed. Cl. 132 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 19, 2007

. § 1915(a), and is found to qualify for informa pauperis status.”). … A waiver of sovereign immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” King, 395 U.S. at 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 .

Consumers Power Co. v. United States Department of Energy

894 F.2d 1571 · Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · Jan 2, 1990

Consumers argues that the Department’s establishment of interest-bearing escrow accounts acts as a waiver of sovereign immunity. We disagree. … We find that the Department did not waive its immunity to interest by establishing these escrow accounts. .

William Clyde Burton v. The United States

404 F.2d 365 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 13, 1968

was no one qualified who was already in the employ of Washington headquarters. 2. … It is, however, pointed out, not by plaintiff, that a person may be immune from a promotion, except with his consent, even if not immune from a lateral transfer to another geographical location.

David L. Henderson v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 217 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 24, 2008

After considering and distinguishing several situations that do not qualify as jurisdictional time limits, 1 the Supreme Court held *219 unequivocally: “Today we make clear that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in … However, Bowles establishes that the premise upon which the Federal Circuit in Bailey and its progeny applied Irwin to the time period established in section 7266(a) can no longer stand.