Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Boss v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 19-1879V. (2020)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: infdco20200227a68 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 22, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1 BRIAN H. CORCORAN , Chief Special Master . On January 16, 2020, Petitioner filed an unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a) in the above-captioned case. In support of this Motion, Petitioner states that the petition was filed in error as a duplicate. The Vaccine Act states that "[o]nly one petition may be filed with respect to each administration of a vaccine." 42 U.S.C. 300aa-11(b)(2). Thus, Petitioner's motion i
More

UNPUBLISHED

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On January 16, 2020, Petitioner filed an unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a) in the above-captioned case. In support of this Motion, Petitioner states that the petition was filed in error as a duplicate. The Vaccine Act states that "[o]nly one petition may be filed with respect to each administration of a vaccine." 42 U.S.C. §300aa-11(b)(2). Thus, Petitioner's motion is GRANTED.

Accordingly, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a), the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is hereby instructed that a judgment shall not enter in the instant case pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Because this unpublished Order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer