Legal Opinion

Mora v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided July 20, 2015No. 13-421VPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Relief from Judgment; RCFC 60(b); Vaccine Rule 36(a)

OPINION AND ORDER

KAPLAN, Judge.

This case is before the Court on a motion for review of the February 27, 2015 decision of Special Master Laura Millman denying the petitioner’s motion seeking relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the Special Master’s decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, nor contrary to law. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, the motion for review must be DENIED.

BACKGROUND

I.…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Holland v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  5. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kenzora v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
  2. Batish v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  3. Batish v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  4. Citizant, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2021
  5. Dilascio v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2021

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API