B. v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 05-1168V. (2018)
Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
Number: infdco20180208966
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 2018
Summary: DECISION DISMISSING PETITION NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On April 24, 2014, petitioners filed a memorandum in which they agreed to be bound by the ruling in the J.M. et al. (02-10V) case. 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 o
Summary: DECISION DISMISSING PETITION NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On April 24, 2014, petitioners filed a memorandum in which they agreed to be bound by the ruling in the J.M. et al. (02-10V) case. 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..
More
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION
NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On April 24, 2014, petitioners filed a memorandum in which they agreed to be bound by the ruling in the J.M. et al. (02-10V) case.
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). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners filed a motion to redact certain information. This decision is being reissued with minimal changes, including redaction of the petitioners' name in the case caption to initials and redaction of the lead omnibus case name 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
