Cases

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ********************* JESSICA ROBERTS, * * No. 16-1030V Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran * v. * * Filed: July 9, 2018 SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUM

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: September 24, 2014 ************************************* PUBLISHED M.R., a minor, * No. 10-639V by and through his natural parent and * Special Master Dorsey guardian, ANN ROBERTS, * * Entitlement; Di

ORDER ALLEGRA, Judge: Petitioner, via this mandamus petition, seeks an order directing Special Master Christian Moran to allow her to subpoena information from the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the vaccine that allegedly killed the decedent in this case. For the reasons that follow, the court DENIES the mandamus petition. I. BACKGROUND The facts relevant

OPINION AND ORDER WOLSKI, Judge. Petitioners, [T.M. and R.R.M.], have moved for review of Special Master Brian H. Corcoran’s decision that they are not entitled to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10—300aa-15 (Vaccine Act or Act). Petitioners assert that the Diptheria Tetanus acellular Pertussis (DTaP) vac

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. Petitioners Marek and Jolanta Milik (collectively, “the Miliks”), on behalf of their son, A.M., appeal the final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims affirming a special master’s decision denying compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34) (“the Vaccine Act”).

Vaccine Injury; Motion for Review; Causation-in-Fact; MMR Vaccine; Onset of Symptoms OPINION AND ORDER CAMPBELL-SMITH, Chief Judge Petitioners, Marek and Jolanta Milik, seek review of a decision in which the special master denied compensation for their claim that their son, A.M., suffered severe neurological injuries as a resu

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l-34; Motion for Review; Autism; Influenza Vaccine OPINION AND ORDER YOCK, Senior Judge This vaccine ease is before the court on petitioners’ motion for review of the decision *138of Special Master Corcoran, which denied petitioners’ claim for compensation under the Nation

OPINION AND ORDER CAMPBELL-SMITH, Chief Judge. Petitioner seeks attorneys’ fees and costs for an unsuccessful claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l to -34 (2012). 2

OPINION AND ORDER HODGES, Judge. Petitioner seeks attorneys’ fees for his unsuccessful appeal from this court and for his application to the Supreme Court for certio-rari in a “fees on fees” vaccine case. Mr. Masías obtained a settlement from the Government in the merits case, then appealed the special master’s denial of his request that the Laffey Matrix be used to calculate his attorney’s fees.

*461 Pro se; Vaccine Act; Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute; Failure to Follow Court Orders OPINION 1 FIRESTONE, Senior Judge. This vaccine injury case comes before the court on petitioners’ motion for revi

Vaccine Act; HPV Vaccine; Special Master; Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services; Due Process; Expert Testimony; Vaccine Rule 3; Vaccine Rule 8. OPINION HORN, J. On May 11, 2012 petitioner K.L.2 filed a timely petition for compensation with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CHRISTINE O.C. MILLER, Judge. This case comes before the court on review of a decision after remand. The scope of the remand was narrow, i.e., to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on petitioner’s medical records insofar as they were relied upon as proof of causation. See Veryzer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 98 Fed.Cl. 214, 228 (2011) (“V

DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting, with whom Circuit Judges NEWMAN, LINN, and REYNA join. Contrary to the majority, I think it is quite clear that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub.L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3743, 3755, Title III (1986) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 to 34) [hereinafter the Vaccine Act], incorporates a discovery rule under which the limitations period does not begin

538 U.S. 1043 ROBERTSv.THOMPSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. No. 02-9883. Supreme Court of United States. May 19, 2003. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MILLER, Judge. This case, before the court after argument on petitioner’s motion for review of the spe-eial master’s order of dismissal, involves an examination into the nature and extent of the authority of the office of special masters to admit or exclude expert opinion evidence from the record that Congress contemplated under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act

634 F.3d 1283 (2011) Donald R. MASIAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent-Appellee. No. 2010-5077. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. March 15, 2011. *1284 Robert T. Moxley, Robert T. Moxley, P.C., of Cheyenne, WY, argued for petitioner-appellant. Catharine E. Reeves,

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REVIEW DAMICH, Judge. On January 4, 2010, Petitioner filed a Motion for Review of the decision of the Special Master awarding Petitioner attorneys’ fees and costs in the underlying action. In conjunction with the motion for review, Petitioner has also moved for “summary affirmance,” in effect payment of interim fees, of the undisputed portion of the fees awarded Petitioner bel

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Multiple sclerosis (“MS”) is a horrible disease. In many cases, the disease manifests itself slowly. A person can experience a symptom of MS in a passing manner; a mild symptom can come and go with no apparent lasting effect. Some medically-recognized symptoms of MS are common events for many people: fatigue, numbness, dizziness, weakness, impaired mobility. Such events a

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MILLER, Judge. This matter is before the court on petitioners’ motion for review of a special master’s decision on attorneys’ fees filed on July 27, 2009, and petitioners’ motion for interim attorneys’ fees filed on October 5, 2009, following petitioners’ unsuccessful compensation claim and partial award on their application for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amou

SUPERIOR COURT RONALD GOLDMAN & 27 OTHER TAXPAYERS v. SECRETARY OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Docket: 2084CV01604 Dates: March 10, 2021