Late Friday, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released a precedential opinion in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a vaccine case and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
King v. United States (Precedential)
In this takings case, pensioners of a multiemployer retirement fund covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) appeal on behalf of themselves and a certified class of similarly situated individuals from a decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granting summary judgment in favor of the government. The Claims Court concluded that Congress’s enactment of the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (“MPRA”), and the resulting reduction of plaintiffs’ pension benefits, did not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment. We conclude that the legislation was not a physical taking and plaintiffs did not prove it was a regulatory taking, so we affirm the decision of the Claims Court.
Bombeva v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Tsvetana Bombeva appeals the Merit Systems Protection Board’s final order, which denied Ms. Bombeva’s petition for review and affirmed the Board’s initial decision that dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision was in accordance with the law and supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
Osenbach v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)
Christina Osenbach and Byran Osenbach, on behalf of their minor child, “B.O.”, appeal the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims affirming a special master’s denial of their petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa–1 to –34. Because the special master applied the correct legal standard to assess B.O.’s off-table aggravation claim, and his factual findings were not arbitrary or capricious, we affirm.