Legal Opinion

Doug Paluck and Rhonda Paluck, as Parents and Natural Guardians on Behalf of Their Minor Son, Karl Paluck v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided May 3, 2013No. 07-889VPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Vaccine case; petitioners’ challenge to a special master’s failure to act on a remanded vaccine ease within the statutorily specified time; 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2)(C); absence of mandatory remedy; analogy to a request for relief by way of a writ of mandamus

OPINION AND ORDER 1

LETTOW, Judge.

Petitioners Doug and Rhonda Paluck, on behalf of their son, Karl Paluck, seek modifi cation of this court’s decision rendered April 18, 2012, remanding this case to a special master pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub.L. No. 99-660, § 311, 100 Stat. 3743, 3755-84 (1986)…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Cheney v. United States District Court for District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. United States v. James Daniel Good Real PropertySupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Guaranty Trust Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  4. Ex Parte FaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  5. Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2003

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Doug Paluck and Rhonda Paluck, as Parents and Natural Guardians on Behalf of Their Minor Son, Karl Paluck v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
  2. Greene v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2018
  3. Hodge v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API