Coiro-Lorusso v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Federal Claims

Coiro-Lorusso v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims

DecidedFebruary 7, 2018

Docket04-258

StatusPublished

This text of Coiro-Lorusso v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Coiro-Lorusso v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coiro-Lorusso v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: August 31, 20171 Refiled in Redacted Form: February 7, 2018

* * * * * * * * * * * * * PUBLISHED EVA J. COIRO-LORUSSO and NICOLA * LORUSSO, as Parents of and Natural * Chief Special Master Dorsey Guardians of U.L., * * No. 04-258V Petitioners, * * Denial of Entitlement; Measles, Mumps v. * & Rubella (“MMR”) Vaccine: Hepatitis * A (“Hep A”) Vaccine; Varicella SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine; Autistic Disorder (“AD”); AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Residual Human DNA Fragments; * HERV-K Fragments; Insertional Respondent. * Mutagenesis; Autoimmunity. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Milton Clay Ragsdale, IV, Ragsdale LLC, Birmingham, AL, for petitioners. Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION

On May 5, 2014, petitioners filed status report 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.

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.

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: August 31, 20171 Refiled in Redacted Form: February 7, 2018

* * * * * * * * * * * * * PUBLISHED EVA J. COIRO-LORUSSO and NICOLA * LORUSSO, as Parents of and Natural * Chief Special Master Dorsey Guardians of U.L., * * No. 04-258V Petitioners, * * Denial of Entitlement; Measles, Mumps v. * & Rubella (“MMR”) Vaccine: Hepatitis * A (“Hep A”) Vaccine; Varicella SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine; Autistic Disorder (“AD”); AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Residual Human DNA Fragments; * HERV-K Fragments; Insertional Respondent. * Mutagenesis; Autoimmunity. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Milton Clay Ragsdale, IV, Ragsdale LLC, Birmingham, AL, for petitioners. Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION

On May 5, 2014, petitioners filed status report 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.

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.

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Coiro-Lorusso v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coiro-lorusso-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack