Legal Opinion

Baker v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided July 7, 2004No. 99-653VPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION and ORDER

FUTEY, Judge.

This pro se vaccine case is before the court on petitioner’s motion for review of the special master’s decision denying entitlement to compensation. Petitioner asserts that the special master’s decision was based on information improperly obtained through inde*670pendent research outside the scope of the record. Petitioner also maintains that the special master’s remarks and actions during the course of the proceedings contravened the Canons of Judicial Conduct. Specifically, petitioner contends that the special master’s conduct demonstrated a lack of independence…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Irwin v. Department of Veterans AffairsSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Demes v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Filtration Development Co., LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
  2. Contreras v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  3. Gaiter v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2019
  4. Henderson v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API