Notes of Decisions
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
· cites it 17× “§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
Robert L. Petty v. United States of Am., Robert L. Petty v. United States, 679 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1982).
· cites it 14× “The court based its conclusion of liability on the Government’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 247b{j)(l)(F), which provided for [t]he development, in consultation with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and…”
Marie & Donald Ducharme v. Merrill-Nat'l Labs., & United States of Am., 574 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1978).
· cites it 7× “The United States filed motions under the Swine Flu Act (42 U.S.C. § 247b) to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, to substitute United States as sole defendant and an additional motion to stay discovery pending outcome of hearing on the motions.”
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980).
· cites it 2× “§ 2679 (b) (operation of motor vehicles by federal employees); and 42 U. S. C. § 247b (k) (manufacturers of swine flu vaccine).”
Robert L. Petty v. United States, 740 F.2d 1428 (8th Cir. 1984).
· cites it 7× “Under Iowa law, Merrill-National would have been held strictly liable for its distribution of a defective product which proximately caused Petty’s injuries.”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods., Etc., 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
· cites it 9× “This Order constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a).”
McDonald v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 935 (M.D. Penn. 1983).
· cites it 7× “(1976), and the-National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 (Swine Flu Act), formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) — (7) (1976), 1 seeking to recover compensatory damages for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of her inoculation with the swine influenza vaccine.”
Jacqueline & Salvadore A. Dipippa v. United States, 687 F.2d 14 (3rd Cir. 1982).
· cites it 5× “DiPippa correctly points out that the first two memoranda indicate only that agency-sponsored medical services provided *17 under 5 U.S.C. § 7901 (1976) qualify for FECA coverage, and that she received her swine flu shot under a nationally sponsored program pursuant to 42 U.”
Harry H. Wallace & Elizabeth Snyder Wallace v. United States, 669 F.2d 947 (4th Cir. 1982).
· cites it 4× “ERVIN, Circuit Judge: Harry Wallace and his wife, Elizabeth, brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland under the Swine Flu Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b, to recover for personal injuries and damages as a result of a swine flu…”
Barnes v. United States, 516 F. Supp. 1376 (W.D. Pa. 1981).
· cites it 9× “The case was brought before the Court pursuant to the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b (1976), the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
Darlene Brazzell v. United States, 788 F.2d 1352 (8th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 4× “In response to the perceived threat of an epidemic of swine flu in 1976, Congress, at the Ford Administration’s prompting, en *1354 acted the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act, former 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j -247b(0 (1976) (“Swine Flu Act”).”
Irene Weldon v. United States, 70 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 1995).
· cites it 3× “3574 (1978), 42 U.S.C. § 247b (1978). 2 . Weldon I was transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the district court for the District of Columbia for coordinated pretrial procedures in In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation, 89 F.”
Wolfe v. Merrill Nat'l Labs., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 231 (M.D. Tenn. 1977).
· cites it 8× “In support of this assertion plaintiff cites the “Congressional findings” section of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k) (1)(A), wherein is recited the necessity “to protect such .”
Wilma F. Gundy v. United States, 728 F.2d 484 (10th Cir. 1984).
· cites it 3× “This is an appeal from the district court’s order denying relief to plaintiff on her personal injury claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) — (1), the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 (“Swine Flu Act”).”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods. Liab., 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
· cites it 6× “VIRUSOne of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent metabolism *1209 and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
Petty v. United States, 536 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Iowa 1980).
· cites it 8× “, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j)-(l). The action was transferred shortly after filing to the District of Columbia for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.”
Gicas v. United States, 508 F. Supp. 217 (E.D. Wis. 1981).
· cites it 4× “94-380 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l)), in which action they seek damages for Arlene Gieas’ allegedly contracting rheumatoid arthritis as a result of a swine flu inoculation.”
Valerie Boruski v. The United States of Am., Merck, Sharp & Dohme Co., & the City of Chicago, a Mun. Corp., 803 F.2d 1421 (7th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Factual Background Pursuant to section 317 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b, the United States promoted a grant program during 1979-80 to assist local governmental agencies, including the City of Chicago, in immunizing persons sixty-five years of age and older,…”
Funston v. United States, 513 F. Supp. 1000 (M.D. Penn. 1981).
· cites it 3× “1113 (1976), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(/) until the enactment of Pub.”
Bean v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
· cites it 8× “42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). Therefore, in order for a plaintiff to recover because of inadequate warning, she must prove negligence.”
Gassman v. United States, 589 F. Supp. 1534 (M.D. Fla. 1984).
· cites it 8× “, in connection with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act [hereinafter “Swine Flu Act”], 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l), seeking compensation for injuries allegedly resulting from her receipt of a swine flu innoculation.”
Joseph E. Lima v. United States, 708 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 3× “These are appeals arising out of litigation involving the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l) (1976) (“Swine Flu Act”).”
Alvarez v. United States, 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
· cites it 6× “VIRUS-One of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent me *1209 tabolism and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prod. Liab. Lit., 533 F. Supp. 703 (D. Utah 1982).
· cites it 5× “PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On October 18, 1976, plaintiff Verlin Unthank, age thirty-eight of Salt Lake City, Utah, received a swine flu vaccination administered pursuant to the National Swine Flu Immunization Program (Swine Flu Act) of 1976, Public Law 94-380 ; 42 U.S.C. §…”
Hasler v. United States, 517 F. Supp. 1262 (E.D. Mich. 1981).
· cites it 3× “The swine flu vaccine administered to her was manufactured, formulated, processed, and sold by Merck, Sharp and Dohme, a division of Merck and Company, a program participant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247b. The Penrick-ton Center for Blind Children was also a program participant…”
Sandra K. Barnes & Robert E. Barnes v. United States, 685 F.2d 66 (3rd Cir. 1982).
· cites it 2× “(Formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j)-(l) (1976)). The statutory provisions comprising the National Swine Flu Program of 1976 have been deleted from the United States Code.”
Smith v. United States, 557 F. Supp. 42 (W.D. Ark. 1982).
· cites it 6× “, by plaintiff, Joyce Carolyn Smith, for the acts or omissions of agents or employees of the United States under the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(i), and for the acts or omissions of “program participants” as defined in the Act.”
United States v. Yale New Haven Hosp., 727 F. Supp. 784 (D. Conn. 1990).
“Plaintiff alleges that on December 6, 1976, Sandra Cardillo received Swine Flu vaccine pursuant to the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act (“Swine Flu Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 247b. Id., 118. Thereafter, she developed Guillian-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”), a peripheral nervous…”
Gallick v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 188 (M.D. Penn. 1982).
· cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A). The limitations period for commencing an action under the FTCA is contained in 28 U.”
Young v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 1306 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
· cites it 5× “, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act (“Swine Flu Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 247b. Plaintiff alleges that on or about November 17, 1976, she received a swine flu vaccination at United Hospital in Port Chester, *1307 New York, as a result of which she…”
Bettie Keown Daniels v. United States, 704 F.2d 587 (11th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 3× “HILL, Circuit Judge: Bettie Keown Daniels, appellant in this proceeding, filed suit in the district court seeking to recover compensatory damages from the United States Government under the Swine Flu Act [hereinafter Act], 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) et seq., pursuant to the Federal…”
Ina M. Overton v. United States, 619 F.2d 1299 (8th Cir. 1980).
“This was the first case tried under the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l). The program provides that the United States shall be liable in tort or for breach of warranty for injuries arising out of administration of the swine flu vaccine, id.”
Erbeck v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 444 (S.D. Ohio 1982).
· cites it 8× “Iowa 1981) another swine flu case in which the Court held that defendant United States had failed to provide an adequate informed consent form as required by 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motions are hereby denied.”
Ernest Stich & Miriam Stich v. United States, 730 F.2d 115 (3rd Cir. 1984).
“§§ 2671-2680 (1976), and the Swine Flu Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k) (1976), Mr. and Mrs. Stich filed suit against the United States in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.”
Verlin G. Unthank v. United States, 732 F.2d 1517 (10th Cir. 1984).
· cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A)(i). All three of the named theories are available under the law of the State of Utah where this vaccination was administered.”
Marneef v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 129 (E.D. Mich. 1981).
· cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l) (amended 1978). Vaccinations began on October 16, 1976, and the program was suspended on December 16, 1976, following reports of a number of participants developing GBS within a ten-week period after inoculation.”
Low v. United States, 463 F. Supp. 948 (E.D. Va. 1978).
· cites it 5× “42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A)(iii) (if swine flu action is brought within two years of the date of inoculation and is dismissed for failure to file a claim, plaintiff has thirty days after dismissal or two years from the date the claim arose, whichever is later, to file a claim).”
Hewitt v. United States, 550 F. Supp. 589 (D. Mass. 1982).
· cites it 3× “On November 21, 1976 Henry Hewitt received a swine flu immunization as part of the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(h), a program funded and directed by the United States government.”
Dovie Freeman v. United States, 704 F.2d 154 (5th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 3× “Freeman sought assistance from several physicians, a chiropractor and physical therapist; yet, none of the prescribed treatments was able to eliminate her pain. On November 17,1978, Ms.”
Brazzell v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 62 (N.D. Iowa 1985).
· cites it 8× “, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(jMI) for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of her swine flu vaccination.”
Young v. United States, 518 F. Supp. 921 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
· cites it 4× “See 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)-(3) (1978). 2 . The Act states in pertinent part: The development .”
Draisma v. United States, 492 F. Supp. 1317 (W.D. Mich. 1980).
“as authorized by the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l). Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on June 20, 1978 after complying with the administrative claims procedure required by the FTCA.”
Darlene A. Brazzell v. United States, 880 F.2d 84 (8th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(1)(B). This provision was designed to ensure participation in the swine flu immunization program by vaccine manufacturers and distributors as well as health agencies and personnel.”
Parham v. United States, 503 F. Supp. 70 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “This case arises out of the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(jHl). Originally filed in this Court, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liabiiity…”
Jones v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 457 F. Supp. 35 (W.D. Ark. 1978).
· cites it 5× “42 U.S.C. § 247b(a). The Swine Flu Act calls for the participation of state and local health departments.”
Zeck v. United States, 559 F. Supp. 1345 (D.S.D. 1983).
· cites it 3× “Congress made the Government liable for injuries caused by the swine flu inoculation program in the Swine Flu Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l). Under the terms of that Act, suits against the Government are funneled through the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
Lee v. United States, 499 F. Supp. 307 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).
“The National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(5)(A), provides that swine flu actions are deemed to be actions brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”
Way v. United States, 495 F. Supp. 1185 (W.D. Okla. 1980).
“THESE MATTERS arise under the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 ( Public Law 94-380 ; 42 U.S.C. § 247b(jMO) [hereinafter referred to as “Swine Flu Act”].”
Peterson v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 676 (D. Idaho 1983).
“See 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(5)(A). After Mrs. Peterson filed this action, it was transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(2)(A)(i) — 1 case
Robert L. Petty v. United States, 740 F.2d 1428 (8th Cir. 1984).
“Under Iowa law, Merrill-National would have been held strictly liable for its distribution of a defective product which proximately caused Petty’s injuries.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(a) — 2 cases
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
“§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
Jones v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 457 F. Supp. 35 (W.D. Ark. 1978).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(a). The Swine Flu Act calls for the participation of state and local health departments.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(h) — 1 case
Hewitt v. United States, 550 F. Supp. 589 (D. Mass. 1982).
“On November 21, 1976 Henry Hewitt received a swine flu immunization as part of the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(h), a program funded and directed by the United States government.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) — 50 cases
Robert L. Petty v. United States of Am., Robert L. Petty v. United States, 679 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1982).
“The court based its conclusion of liability on the Government’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 247b{j)(l)(F), which provided for [t]he development, in consultation with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and…”
Irene Weldon v. United States, 70 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 1995).
“3574 (1978), 42 U.S.C. § 247b (1978). 2 . Weldon I was transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the district court for the District of Columbia for coordinated pretrial procedures in In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation, 89 F.”
Harry H. Wallace & Elizabeth Snyder Wallace v. United States, 669 F.2d 947 (4th Cir. 1982).
“ERVIN, Circuit Judge: Harry Wallace and his wife, Elizabeth, brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland under the Swine Flu Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b, to recover for personal injuries and damages as a result of a swine flu…”
Jacqueline & Salvadore A. Dipippa v. United States, 687 F.2d 14 (3rd Cir. 1982).
“DiPippa correctly points out that the first two memoranda indicate only that agency-sponsored medical services provided *17 under 5 U.S.C. § 7901 (1976) qualify for FECA coverage, and that she received her swine flu shot under a nationally sponsored program pursuant to 42 U.”
Wilma F. Gundy v. United States, 728 F.2d 484 (10th Cir. 1984).
“This is an appeal from the district court’s order denying relief to plaintiff on her personal injury claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) — (1), the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 (“Swine Flu Act”).”
Robert L. Petty v. United States, 740 F.2d 1428 (8th Cir. 1984).
“Under Iowa law, Merrill-National would have been held strictly liable for its distribution of a defective product which proximately caused Petty’s injuries.”
Sandra K. Barnes & Robert E. Barnes v. United States, 685 F.2d 66 (3rd Cir. 1982).
“(Formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j)-(l) (1976)). The statutory provisions comprising the National Swine Flu Program of 1976 have been deleted from the United States Code.”
McDonald v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 935 (M.D. Penn. 1983).
“(1976), and the-National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 (Swine Flu Act), formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) — (7) (1976), 1 seeking to recover compensatory damages for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of her inoculation with the swine influenza vaccine.”
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
“§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
Funston v. United States, 513 F. Supp. 1000 (M.D. Penn. 1981).
“1113 (1976), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(/) until the enactment of Pub.”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prod. Liab. Lit., 533 F. Supp. 703 (D. Utah 1982).
“PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On October 18, 1976, plaintiff Verlin Unthank, age thirty-eight of Salt Lake City, Utah, received a swine flu vaccination administered pursuant to the National Swine Flu Immunization Program (Swine Flu Act) of 1976, Public Law 94-380 ; 42 U.S.C. §…”
Gicas v. United States, 508 F. Supp. 217 (E.D. Wis. 1981).
“94-380 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l)), in which action they seek damages for Arlene Gieas’ allegedly contracting rheumatoid arthritis as a result of a swine flu inoculation.”
Bettie Keown Daniels v. United States, 704 F.2d 587 (11th Cir. 1983).
“HILL, Circuit Judge: Bettie Keown Daniels, appellant in this proceeding, filed suit in the district court seeking to recover compensatory damages from the United States Government under the Swine Flu Act [hereinafter Act], 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) et seq., pursuant to the Federal…”
Petty v. United States, 536 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Iowa 1980).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j)-(l). The action was transferred shortly after filing to the District of Columbia for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.”
Smith v. United States, 557 F. Supp. 42 (W.D. Ark. 1982).
“, by plaintiff, Joyce Carolyn Smith, for the acts or omissions of agents or employees of the United States under the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(i), and for the acts or omissions of “program participants” as defined in the Act.”
Gassman v. United States, 589 F. Supp. 1534 (M.D. Fla. 1984).
“, in connection with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act [hereinafter “Swine Flu Act”], 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l), seeking compensation for injuries allegedly resulting from her receipt of a swine flu innoculation.”
Darlene A. Brazzell v. United States, 880 F.2d 84 (8th Cir. 1989).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(1)(B). This provision was designed to ensure participation in the swine flu immunization program by vaccine manufacturers and distributors as well as health agencies and personnel.”
Young v. United States, 518 F. Supp. 921 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
“See 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)-(3) (1978). 2 . The Act states in pertinent part: The development .”
Brazzell v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 62 (N.D. Iowa 1985).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(jMI) for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of her swine flu vaccination.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(1) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(1)(D) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(1)(F) — 6 cases
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
“§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
Petty v. United States, 536 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Iowa 1980).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j)-(l). The action was transferred shortly after filing to the District of Columbia for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods., Etc., 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“This Order constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a).”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prod. Liab. Lit., 533 F. Supp. 703 (D. Utah 1982).
“PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On October 18, 1976, plaintiff Verlin Unthank, age thirty-eight of Salt Lake City, Utah, received a swine flu vaccination administered pursuant to the National Swine Flu Immunization Program (Swine Flu Act) of 1976, Public Law 94-380 ; 42 U.S.C. §…”
Young v. United States, 518 F. Supp. 921 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
“See 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)-(3) (1978). 2 . The Act states in pertinent part: The development .”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l) — 9 cases
Ina M. Overton v. United States, 619 F.2d 1299 (8th Cir. 1980).
“This was the first case tried under the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l). The program provides that the United States shall be liable in tort or for breach of warranty for injuries arising out of administration of the swine flu vaccine, id.”
Joseph E. Lima v. United States, 708 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1983).
“These are appeals arising out of litigation involving the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l) (1976) (“Swine Flu Act”).”
Smith v. United States, 557 F. Supp. 42 (W.D. Ark. 1982).
“, by plaintiff, Joyce Carolyn Smith, for the acts or omissions of agents or employees of the United States under the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(i), and for the acts or omissions of “program participants” as defined in the Act.”
Marneef v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 129 (E.D. Mich. 1981).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l) (amended 1978). Vaccinations began on October 16, 1976, and the program was suspended on December 16, 1976, following reports of a number of participants developing GBS within a ten-week period after inoculation.”
Young v. United States, 518 F. Supp. 921 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
“See 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)-(3) (1978). 2 . The Act states in pertinent part: The development .”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F) — 15 cases
Valerie Boruski v. The United States of Am., Merck, Sharp & Dohme Co., & the City of Chicago, a Mun. Corp., 803 F.2d 1421 (7th Cir. 1986).
“Factual Background Pursuant to section 317 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b, the United States promoted a grant program during 1979-80 to assist local governmental agencies, including the City of Chicago, in immunizing persons sixty-five years of age and older,…”
Robert L. Petty v. United States, 740 F.2d 1428 (8th Cir. 1984).
“Under Iowa law, Merrill-National would have been held strictly liable for its distribution of a defective product which proximately caused Petty’s injuries.”
Erbeck v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 444 (S.D. Ohio 1982).
“Iowa 1981) another swine flu case in which the Court held that defendant United States had failed to provide an adequate informed consent form as required by 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motions are hereby denied.”
Funston v. United States, 513 F. Supp. 1000 (M.D. Penn. 1981).
“1113 (1976), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(/) until the enactment of Pub.”
Petty v. United States, 536 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Iowa 1980).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j)-(l). The action was transferred shortly after filing to the District of Columbia for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.”
Robert L. Petty v. United States of Am., Robert L. Petty v. United States, 679 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1982).
“The court based its conclusion of liability on the Government’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 247b{j)(l)(F), which provided for [t]he development, in consultation with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and…”
Hasler v. United States, 517 F. Supp. 1262 (E.D. Mich. 1981).
“The swine flu vaccine administered to her was manufactured, formulated, processed, and sold by Merck, Sharp and Dohme, a division of Merck and Company, a program participant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247b. The Penrick-ton Center for Blind Children was also a program participant…”
Dovie Freeman v. United States, 704 F.2d 154 (5th Cir. 1983).
“Freeman sought assistance from several physicians, a chiropractor and physical therapist; yet, none of the prescribed treatments was able to eliminate her pain. On November 17,1978, Ms.”
Gassman v. United States, 589 F. Supp. 1534 (M.D. Fla. 1984).
“, in connection with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act [hereinafter “Swine Flu Act”], 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l), seeking compensation for injuries allegedly resulting from her receipt of a swine flu innoculation.”
Bean v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). Therefore, in order for a plaintiff to recover because of inadequate warning, she must prove negligence.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(jHI) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(jHi) — 1 case
Smith v. United States, 557 F. Supp. 42 (W.D. Ark. 1982).
“, by plaintiff, Joyce Carolyn Smith, for the acts or omissions of agents or employees of the United States under the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(i), and for the acts or omissions of “program participants” as defined in the Act.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(jHl) — 1 case
Parham v. United States, 503 F. Supp. 70 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).
“This case arises out of the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(jHl). Originally filed in this Court, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liabiiity…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(jMI) — 1 case
Brazzell v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 62 (N.D. Iowa 1985).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(jMI) for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of her swine flu vaccination.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(jMO) — 1 case
Way v. United States, 495 F. Supp. 1185 (W.D. Okla. 1980).
“THESE MATTERS arise under the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 ( Public Law 94-380 ; 42 U.S.C. § 247b(jMO) [hereinafter referred to as “Swine Flu Act”].”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k) — 25 cases
Ernest Stich & Miriam Stich v. United States, 730 F.2d 115 (3rd Cir. 1984).
“§§ 2671-2680 (1976), and the Swine Flu Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k) (1976), Mr. and Mrs. Stich filed suit against the United States in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.”
Irene Weldon v. United States, 70 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 1995).
“3574 (1978), 42 U.S.C. § 247b (1978). 2 . Weldon I was transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the district court for the District of Columbia for coordinated pretrial procedures in In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation, 89 F.”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods., Etc., 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“This Order constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a).”
Gicas v. United States, 508 F. Supp. 217 (E.D. Wis. 1981).
“94-380 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l)), in which action they seek damages for Arlene Gieas’ allegedly contracting rheumatoid arthritis as a result of a swine flu inoculation.”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods. Liab., 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
“VIRUSOne of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent metabolism *1209 and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
Barnes v. United States, 516 F. Supp. 1376 (W.D. Pa. 1981).
“The case was brought before the Court pursuant to the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b (1976), the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
Wolfe v. Merrill Nat'l Labs., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 231 (M.D. Tenn. 1977).
“In support of this assertion plaintiff cites the “Congressional findings” section of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k) (1)(A), wherein is recited the necessity “to protect such .”
Petty v. United States, 536 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Iowa 1980).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j)-(l). The action was transferred shortly after filing to the District of Columbia for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.”
Alvarez v. United States, 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
“VIRUS-One of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent me *1209 tabolism and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
Young v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 1306 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act (“Swine Flu Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 247b. Plaintiff alleges that on or about November 17, 1976, she received a swine flu vaccination at United Hospital in Port Chester, *1307 New York, as a result of which she…”
Bean v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). Therefore, in order for a plaintiff to recover because of inadequate warning, she must prove negligence.”
Brazzell v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 62 (N.D. Iowa 1985).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(jMI) for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of her swine flu vaccination.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(1) — 2 cases
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
“§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(1)(A)(i) — 2 cases
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
“§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods., Etc., 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“This Order constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a).”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(1)(B) — 2 cases
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
“§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
Darlene A. Brazzell v. United States, 880 F.2d 84 (8th Cir. 1989).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(1)(B). This provision was designed to ensure participation in the swine flu immunization program by vaccine manufacturers and distributors as well as health agencies and personnel.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2) — 4 cases
Robert L. Petty v. United States of Am., Robert L. Petty v. United States, 679 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1982).
“The court based its conclusion of liability on the Government’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 247b{j)(l)(F), which provided for [t]he development, in consultation with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and…”
Sandra K. Barnes & Robert E. Barnes v. United States, 685 F.2d 66 (3rd Cir. 1982).
“(Formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j)-(l) (1976)). The statutory provisions comprising the National Swine Flu Program of 1976 have been deleted from the United States Code.”
Young v. United States, 518 F. Supp. 921 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
“See 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)-(3) (1978). 2 . The Act states in pertinent part: The development .”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A) — 40 cases
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
“§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
Wilma F. Gundy v. United States, 728 F.2d 484 (10th Cir. 1984).
“This is an appeal from the district court’s order denying relief to plaintiff on her personal injury claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) — (1), the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 (“Swine Flu Act”).”
McDonald v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 935 (M.D. Penn. 1983).
“(1976), and the-National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 (Swine Flu Act), formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) — (7) (1976), 1 seeking to recover compensatory damages for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of her inoculation with the swine influenza vaccine.”
Barnes v. United States, 516 F. Supp. 1376 (W.D. Pa. 1981).
“The case was brought before the Court pursuant to the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b (1976), the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
Robert L. Petty v. United States of Am., Robert L. Petty v. United States, 679 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1982).
“The court based its conclusion of liability on the Government’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 247b{j)(l)(F), which provided for [t]he development, in consultation with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and…”
Joseph E. Lima v. United States, 708 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1983).
“These are appeals arising out of litigation involving the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l) (1976) (“Swine Flu Act”).”
Gallick v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 188 (M.D. Penn. 1982).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A). The limitations period for commencing an action under the FTCA is contained in 28 U.”
Robert L. Petty v. United States, 740 F.2d 1428 (8th Cir. 1984).
“Under Iowa law, Merrill-National would have been held strictly liable for its distribution of a defective product which proximately caused Petty’s injuries.”
Bettie Keown Daniels v. United States, 704 F.2d 587 (11th Cir. 1983).
“HILL, Circuit Judge: Bettie Keown Daniels, appellant in this proceeding, filed suit in the district court seeking to recover compensatory damages from the United States Government under the Swine Flu Act [hereinafter Act], 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) et seq., pursuant to the Federal…”
Funston v. United States, 513 F. Supp. 1000 (M.D. Penn. 1981).
“1113 (1976), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(/) until the enactment of Pub.”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods., Etc., 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“This Order constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a).”
Gicas v. United States, 508 F. Supp. 217 (E.D. Wis. 1981).
“94-380 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l)), in which action they seek damages for Arlene Gieas’ allegedly contracting rheumatoid arthritis as a result of a swine flu inoculation.”
Young v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 1306 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act (“Swine Flu Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 247b. Plaintiff alleges that on or about November 17, 1976, she received a swine flu vaccination at United Hospital in Port Chester, *1307 New York, as a result of which she…”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods. Liab., 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
“VIRUSOne of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent metabolism *1209 and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
Wolfe v. Merrill Nat'l Labs., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 231 (M.D. Tenn. 1977).
“In support of this assertion plaintiff cites the “Congressional findings” section of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k) (1)(A), wherein is recited the necessity “to protect such .”
Petty v. United States, 536 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Iowa 1980).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j)-(l). The action was transferred shortly after filing to the District of Columbia for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.”
Alvarez v. United States, 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
“VIRUS-One of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent me *1209 tabolism and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
Bean v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). Therefore, in order for a plaintiff to recover because of inadequate warning, she must prove negligence.”
Marneef v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 129 (E.D. Mich. 1981).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l) (amended 1978). Vaccinations began on October 16, 1976, and the program was suspended on December 16, 1976, following reports of a number of participants developing GBS within a ten-week period after inoculation.”
Gassman v. United States, 589 F. Supp. 1534 (M.D. Fla. 1984).
“, in connection with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act [hereinafter “Swine Flu Act”], 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l), seeking compensation for injuries allegedly resulting from her receipt of a swine flu innoculation.”
Low v. United States, 463 F. Supp. 948 (E.D. Va. 1978).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A)(iii) (if swine flu action is brought within two years of the date of inoculation and is dismissed for failure to file a claim, plaintiff has thirty days after dismissal or two years from the date the claim arose, whichever is later, to file a claim).”
Erbeck v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 444 (S.D. Ohio 1982).
“Iowa 1981) another swine flu case in which the Court held that defendant United States had failed to provide an adequate informed consent form as required by 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motions are hereby denied.”
Brazzell v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 62 (N.D. Iowa 1985).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(jMI) for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of her swine flu vaccination.”
Jones v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 457 F. Supp. 35 (W.D. Ark. 1978).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(a). The Swine Flu Act calls for the participation of state and local health departments.”
Zeck v. United States, 559 F. Supp. 1345 (D.S.D. 1983).
“Congress made the Government liable for injuries caused by the swine flu inoculation program in the Swine Flu Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l). Under the terms of that Act, suits against the Government are funneled through the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A)(i) — 17 cases
Darlene Brazzell v. United States, 788 F.2d 1352 (8th Cir. 1986).
“In response to the perceived threat of an epidemic of swine flu in 1976, Congress, at the Ford Administration’s prompting, en *1354 acted the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act, former 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j -247b(0 (1976) (“Swine Flu Act”).”
Robert L. Petty v. United States of Am., Robert L. Petty v. United States, 679 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1982).
“The court based its conclusion of liability on the Government’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 247b{j)(l)(F), which provided for [t]he development, in consultation with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and…”
Verlin G. Unthank v. United States, 732 F.2d 1517 (10th Cir. 1984).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A)(i). All three of the named theories are available under the law of the State of Utah where this vaccination was administered.”
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
“§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prod. Liab. Lit., 533 F. Supp. 703 (D. Utah 1982).
“PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On October 18, 1976, plaintiff Verlin Unthank, age thirty-eight of Salt Lake City, Utah, received a swine flu vaccination administered pursuant to the National Swine Flu Immunization Program (Swine Flu Act) of 1976, Public Law 94-380 ; 42 U.S.C. §…”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods., Etc., 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“This Order constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a).”
Bean v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). Therefore, in order for a plaintiff to recover because of inadequate warning, she must prove negligence.”
Gassman v. United States, 589 F. Supp. 1534 (M.D. Fla. 1984).
“, in connection with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act [hereinafter “Swine Flu Act”], 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l), seeking compensation for injuries allegedly resulting from her receipt of a swine flu innoculation.”
Darlene A. Brazzell v. United States, 880 F.2d 84 (8th Cir. 1989).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(1)(B). This provision was designed to ensure participation in the swine flu immunization program by vaccine manufacturers and distributors as well as health agencies and personnel.”
Jones v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 457 F. Supp. 35 (W.D. Ark. 1978).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(a). The Swine Flu Act calls for the participation of state and local health departments.”
Zeck v. United States, 559 F. Supp. 1345 (D.S.D. 1983).
“Congress made the Government liable for injuries caused by the swine flu inoculation program in the Swine Flu Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l). Under the terms of that Act, suits against the Government are funneled through the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A)(ii) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A)(iii) — 6 cases
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods., Etc., 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“This Order constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a).”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods. Liab., 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
“VIRUSOne of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent metabolism *1209 and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
Alvarez v. United States, 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
“VIRUS-One of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent me *1209 tabolism and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
Bean v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). Therefore, in order for a plaintiff to recover because of inadequate warning, she must prove negligence.”
Low v. United States, 463 F. Supp. 948 (E.D. Va. 1978).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A)(iii) (if swine flu action is brought within two years of the date of inoculation and is dismissed for failure to file a claim, plaintiff has thirty days after dismissal or two years from the date the claim arose, whichever is later, to file a claim).”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(B) — 13 cases
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
“§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
Marie & Donald Ducharme v. Merrill-Nat'l Labs., & United States of Am., 574 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1978).
“The United States filed motions under the Swine Flu Act (42 U.S.C. § 247b) to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, to substitute United States as sole defendant and an additional motion to stay discovery pending outcome of hearing on the motions.”
Harry H. Wallace & Elizabeth Snyder Wallace v. United States, 669 F.2d 947 (4th Cir. 1982).
“ERVIN, Circuit Judge: Harry Wallace and his wife, Elizabeth, brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland under the Swine Flu Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b, to recover for personal injuries and damages as a result of a swine flu…”
Robert L. Petty v. United States, 740 F.2d 1428 (8th Cir. 1984).
“Under Iowa law, Merrill-National would have been held strictly liable for its distribution of a defective product which proximately caused Petty’s injuries.”
McDonald v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 935 (M.D. Penn. 1983).
“(1976), and the-National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 (Swine Flu Act), formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) — (7) (1976), 1 seeking to recover compensatory damages for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of her inoculation with the swine influenza vaccine.”
Robert L. Petty v. United States of Am., Robert L. Petty v. United States, 679 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1982).
“The court based its conclusion of liability on the Government’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 247b{j)(l)(F), which provided for [t]he development, in consultation with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and…”
Wolfe v. Merrill Nat'l Labs., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 231 (M.D. Tenn. 1977).
“In support of this assertion plaintiff cites the “Congressional findings” section of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k) (1)(A), wherein is recited the necessity “to protect such .”
Gassman v. United States, 589 F. Supp. 1534 (M.D. Fla. 1984).
“, in connection with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act [hereinafter “Swine Flu Act”], 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l), seeking compensation for injuries allegedly resulting from her receipt of a swine flu innoculation.”
Low v. United States, 463 F. Supp. 948 (E.D. Va. 1978).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A)(iii) (if swine flu action is brought within two years of the date of inoculation and is dismissed for failure to file a claim, plaintiff has thirty days after dismissal or two years from the date the claim arose, whichever is later, to file a claim).”
Jones v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 457 F. Supp. 35 (W.D. Ark. 1978).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(a). The Swine Flu Act calls for the participation of state and local health departments.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(a) — 1 case
Hewitt v. United States, 550 F. Supp. 589 (D. Mass. 1982).
“On November 21, 1976 Henry Hewitt received a swine flu immunization as part of the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(h), a program funded and directed by the United States government.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(3) — 28 cases
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
“§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
Marie & Donald Ducharme v. Merrill-Nat'l Labs., & United States of Am., 574 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1978).
“The United States filed motions under the Swine Flu Act (42 U.S.C. § 247b) to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, to substitute United States as sole defendant and an additional motion to stay discovery pending outcome of hearing on the motions.”
Jacqueline & Salvadore A. Dipippa v. United States, 687 F.2d 14 (3rd Cir. 1982).
“DiPippa correctly points out that the first two memoranda indicate only that agency-sponsored medical services provided *17 under 5 U.S.C. § 7901 (1976) qualify for FECA coverage, and that she received her swine flu shot under a nationally sponsored program pursuant to 42 U.”
McDonald v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 935 (M.D. Penn. 1983).
“(1976), and the-National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 (Swine Flu Act), formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) — (7) (1976), 1 seeking to recover compensatory damages for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of her inoculation with the swine influenza vaccine.”
Wolfe v. Merrill Nat'l Labs., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 231 (M.D. Tenn. 1977).
“In support of this assertion plaintiff cites the “Congressional findings” section of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k) (1)(A), wherein is recited the necessity “to protect such .”
Robert L. Petty v. United States of Am., Robert L. Petty v. United States, 679 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1982).
“The court based its conclusion of liability on the Government’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 247b{j)(l)(F), which provided for [t]he development, in consultation with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and…”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods., Etc., 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“This Order constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a).”
Gicas v. United States, 508 F. Supp. 217 (E.D. Wis. 1981).
“94-380 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l)), in which action they seek damages for Arlene Gieas’ allegedly contracting rheumatoid arthritis as a result of a swine flu inoculation.”
Smith v. United States, 557 F. Supp. 42 (W.D. Ark. 1982).
“, by plaintiff, Joyce Carolyn Smith, for the acts or omissions of agents or employees of the United States under the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(i), and for the acts or omissions of “program participants” as defined in the Act.”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods. Liab., 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
“VIRUSOne of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent metabolism *1209 and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
Barnes v. United States, 516 F. Supp. 1376 (W.D. Pa. 1981).
“The case was brought before the Court pursuant to the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b (1976), the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
Petty v. United States, 536 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Iowa 1980).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(j)-(l). The action was transferred shortly after filing to the District of Columbia for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.”
Alvarez v. United States, 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
“VIRUS-One of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent me *1209 tabolism and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
Young v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 1306 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act (“Swine Flu Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 247b. Plaintiff alleges that on or about November 17, 1976, she received a swine flu vaccination at United Hospital in Port Chester, *1307 New York, as a result of which she…”
Bean v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). Therefore, in order for a plaintiff to recover because of inadequate warning, she must prove negligence.”
Marneef v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 129 (E.D. Mich. 1981).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l) (amended 1978). Vaccinations began on October 16, 1976, and the program was suspended on December 16, 1976, following reports of a number of participants developing GBS within a ten-week period after inoculation.”
Gassman v. United States, 589 F. Supp. 1534 (M.D. Fla. 1984).
“, in connection with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act [hereinafter “Swine Flu Act”], 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l), seeking compensation for injuries allegedly resulting from her receipt of a swine flu innoculation.”
Low v. United States, 463 F. Supp. 948 (E.D. Va. 1978).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A)(iii) (if swine flu action is brought within two years of the date of inoculation and is dismissed for failure to file a claim, plaintiff has thirty days after dismissal or two years from the date the claim arose, whichever is later, to file a claim).”
Brazzell v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 62 (N.D. Iowa 1985).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(jMI) for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of her swine flu vaccination.”
Jones v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 457 F. Supp. 35 (W.D. Ark. 1978).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(a). The Swine Flu Act calls for the participation of state and local health departments.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(4) — 4 cases
McDonald v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 935 (M.D. Penn. 1983).
“(1976), and the-National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 (Swine Flu Act), formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) — (7) (1976), 1 seeking to recover compensatory damages for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of her inoculation with the swine influenza vaccine.”
Smith v. United States, 557 F. Supp. 42 (W.D. Ark. 1982).
“, by plaintiff, Joyce Carolyn Smith, for the acts or omissions of agents or employees of the United States under the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(i), and for the acts or omissions of “program participants” as defined in the Act.”
Marneef v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 129 (E.D. Mich. 1981).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l) (amended 1978). Vaccinations began on October 16, 1976, and the program was suspended on December 16, 1976, following reports of a number of participants developing GBS within a ten-week period after inoculation.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(5)(A) — 4 cases
Barnes v. United States, 516 F. Supp. 1376 (W.D. Pa. 1981).
“The case was brought before the Court pursuant to the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b (1976), the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
Wolfe v. Merrill Nat'l Labs., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 231 (M.D. Tenn. 1977).
“In support of this assertion plaintiff cites the “Congressional findings” section of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k) (1)(A), wherein is recited the necessity “to protect such .”
Lee v. United States, 499 F. Supp. 307 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).
“The National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(5)(A), provides that swine flu actions are deemed to be actions brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”
Peterson v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 676 (D. Idaho 1983).
“See 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(5)(A). After Mrs. Peterson filed this action, it was transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(5)(B) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(5)(C) — 4 cases
Jacqueline & Salvadore A. Dipippa v. United States, 687 F.2d 14 (3rd Cir. 1982).
“DiPippa correctly points out that the first two memoranda indicate only that agency-sponsored medical services provided *17 under 5 U.S.C. § 7901 (1976) qualify for FECA coverage, and that she received her swine flu shot under a nationally sponsored program pursuant to 42 U.”
Harry H. Wallace & Elizabeth Snyder Wallace v. United States, 669 F.2d 947 (4th Cir. 1982).
“ERVIN, Circuit Judge: Harry Wallace and his wife, Elizabeth, brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland under the Swine Flu Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b, to recover for personal injuries and damages as a result of a swine flu…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(7) — 12 cases
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
“§ 247b(k)(1) (A)(ii)), that the non-joinder provisions were necessary to achieve the legislative intent and therefore that the substantive provisions of the Swine Flu Act control over the procedural devices of the Federal Rules and that there will not be any infringement of…”
Marie & Donald Ducharme v. Merrill-Nat'l Labs., & United States of Am., 574 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1978).
“The United States filed motions under the Swine Flu Act (42 U.S.C. § 247b) to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, to substitute United States as sole defendant and an additional motion to stay discovery pending outcome of hearing on the motions.”
McDonald v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 935 (M.D. Penn. 1983).
“(1976), and the-National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 (Swine Flu Act), formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j) — (7) (1976), 1 seeking to recover compensatory damages for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of her inoculation with the swine influenza vaccine.”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods., Etc., 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“This Order constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a).”
In Re Swine Flu Immunization Prods. Liab., 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
“VIRUSOne of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent metabolism *1209 and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
Barnes v. United States, 516 F. Supp. 1376 (W.D. Pa. 1981).
“The case was brought before the Court pursuant to the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b (1976), the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
Wolfe v. Merrill Nat'l Labs., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 231 (M.D. Tenn. 1977).
“In support of this assertion plaintiff cites the “Congressional findings” section of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k) (1)(A), wherein is recited the necessity “to protect such .”
Alvarez v. United States, 495 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1980).
“VIRUS-One of a group of infectious agents characterized by a lack of independent me *1209 tabolism and by the ability to replicate only within living host cells.”
Bean v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). Therefore, in order for a plaintiff to recover because of inadequate warning, she must prove negligence.”
Brazzell v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 62 (N.D. Iowa 1985).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(jMI) for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of her swine flu vaccination.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l) — 3 cases
Gallick v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 188 (M.D. Penn. 1982).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(2)(A). The limitations period for commencing an action under the FTCA is contained in 28 U.”
Draisma v. United States, 492 F. Supp. 1317 (W.D. Mich. 1980).
“as authorized by the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l). Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on June 20, 1978 after complying with the administrative claims procedure required by the FTCA.”
Zeck v. United States, 559 F. Supp. 1345 (D.S.D. 1983).
“Congress made the Government liable for injuries caused by the swine flu inoculation program in the Swine Flu Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l). Under the terms of that Act, suits against the Government are funneled through the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l)(A) — 3 cases
Marie & Donald Ducharme v. Merrill-Nat'l Labs., & United States of Am., 574 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1978).
“The United States filed motions under the Swine Flu Act (42 U.S.C. § 247b) to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, to substitute United States as sole defendant and an additional motion to stay discovery pending outcome of hearing on the motions.”
Dovie Freeman v. United States, 704 F.2d 154 (5th Cir. 1983).
“Freeman sought assistance from several physicians, a chiropractor and physical therapist; yet, none of the prescribed treatments was able to eliminate her pain. On November 17,1978, Ms.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l)(A)(i) — 1 case
Bean v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 567 (D. Colo. 1980).
“42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l)(F). Therefore, in order for a plaintiff to recover because of inadequate warning, she must prove negligence.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l)(A)(ii) — 2 cases
Marie & Donald Ducharme v. Merrill-Nat'l Labs., & United States of Am., 574 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1978).
“The United States filed motions under the Swine Flu Act (42 U.S.C. § 247b) to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, to substitute United States as sole defendant and an additional motion to stay discovery pending outcome of hearing on the motions.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l)(B) — 8 cases
Marie & Donald Ducharme v. Merrill-Nat'l Labs., & United States of Am., 574 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1978).
“The United States filed motions under the Swine Flu Act (42 U.S.C. § 247b) to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, to substitute United States as sole defendant and an additional motion to stay discovery pending outcome of hearing on the motions.”
Jacqueline & Salvadore A. Dipippa v. United States, 687 F.2d 14 (3rd Cir. 1982).
“DiPippa correctly points out that the first two memoranda indicate only that agency-sponsored medical services provided *17 under 5 U.S.C. § 7901 (1976) qualify for FECA coverage, and that she received her swine flu shot under a nationally sponsored program pursuant to 42 U.”
Robert L. Petty v. United States, 740 F.2d 1428 (8th Cir. 1984).
“Under Iowa law, Merrill-National would have been held strictly liable for its distribution of a defective product which proximately caused Petty’s injuries.”
Robert L. Petty v. United States of Am., Robert L. Petty v. United States, 679 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1982).
“The court based its conclusion of liability on the Government’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 247b{j)(l)(F), which provided for [t]he development, in consultation with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and…”
Wolfe v. Merrill Nat'l Labs., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 231 (M.D. Tenn. 1977).
“In support of this assertion plaintiff cites the “Congressional findings” section of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k) (1)(A), wherein is recited the necessity “to protect such .”
Gassman v. United States, 589 F. Supp. 1534 (M.D. Fla. 1984).
“, in connection with the National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act [hereinafter “Swine Flu Act”], 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)-(l), seeking compensation for injuries allegedly resulting from her receipt of a swine flu innoculation.”
Brazzell v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 62 (N.D. Iowa 1985).
“, in conjunction with the National Swine Flu Immunization Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247b(jMI) for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of her swine flu vaccination.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.