Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Doctrine of Equitable Tolling and Vaccine Claims
The limitations period for the filing of claims under the “Vaccine Act” has kept many from recovering for vaccine-related injuries. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. ” 300aa-1 to -34 (Vaccine Act), allows a 36-month window from the time a vaccine-related injury manifests itself to the time of filing. Any claim made after that is barred by the relevant statute of limitations. 42 U.S.C. ' 300aa-16(a)(2).
Still, claimants try to stretch the boundaries, offering varying reasons for why their cases should not be time-barred. Recently, in one such case, Cloer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16449 (Fed. Cir. 9/5/11), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Federal Circuit panel decision and found against a woman who had won the right to pursue her claim. That case, while foreclosing the claimant's right to seek redress, also contained the reversal of a precedent set 10 years earlier in Brice v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 240 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The Brice holding had precluded application of the doctrine of equitable tolling in Vaccine Act cases. Going forward, that rule is not necessarily a bar to late filing, though access to the courts for tardy claimants will remain very limited.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
When Is a Repair Structural or Nonstructural Under a Commercial Lease?
A common question that commercial landlords and tenants face is which of them is responsible for a repair to the subject premises. These disputes often center on whether the repair is "structural" or "nonstructural."