KING v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 05-717V. (2018)
Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
Number: infdco20180208965
Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 2018
Summary: DECISION DISMISSING PETITION NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On June 22, 2015, petitioners filed an unopposed motion to join the J.M. et al. (02-10V) Omnibus proceeding in which they agreed to be bound by the ruling in J.M. et al. On August 31, 2017, I ruled against petitioners in J.M. et al. A copy of that decision is attached hereto as Appendix A and is incorporated herein. Accordingly, petitioners are bound by that decision, and this case is DISMISSED. In the absen
Summary: DECISION DISMISSING PETITION NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On June 22, 2015, petitioners filed an unopposed motion to join the J.M. et al. (02-10V) Omnibus proceeding in which they agreed to be bound by the ruling in J.M. et al. On August 31, 2017, I ruled against petitioners in J.M. et al. A copy of that decision is attached hereto as Appendix A and is incorporated herein. Accordingly, petitioners are bound by that decision, and this case is DISMISSED. In the absenc..
More
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION
NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On June 22, 2015, petitioners filed an unopposed motion to join the J.M. et al. (02-10V) Omnibus proceeding in which they agreed to be bound by the ruling in J.M. et al.
On August 31, 2017, I ruled against petitioners in J.M. et al. A copy of that decision is attached hereto as Appendix A and is incorporated herein.
Accordingly, petitioners are bound by that decision, and this case is DISMISSED. In the absence of a motion for review,2 the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. When this decision was originally filed, I advised the parties of my intent 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). Although the petitioners did not file a motion for redaction in their case, petitioners in the lead omnibus case, J.M. et al. (02-10V), filed a motion to have their names redacted to initials. This decision is being reissued to reflect that the names of the petitioners in the J.M. et al. case have been redacted to initials. Except for those changes and this footnote, no other substantive changes have been made.
2. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties' joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Source: Leagle
