Ryan Thomas Holte

This case concerns a breach-of-contract dispute between six hospitals and the Department of Defense/TRICARE over a 2011 discretionary payment process (DPP) designed to adjust underpayments for outpatient radiology services rendered from 2003 to 2009, after a study showed TRICARE had reimbursed hospitals less than Medicare would have. The hospitals alleged the government failed to properly extract, analyze, and adjust line-item claims data from its database as required under the contract formed by the DPP notice, letters, FAQs, and releases. Following a Federal Circuit remand and years of litigation, the Court of Federal Claims addressed the sole surviving claim via cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted in part and denied in part both the government’s motion and the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, based on its interpretation of the parties’ respective duties under the contract terms.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved a contract dispute between Big Easy Studios and NASA over the use of the Michoud Assembly Facility for filming movies. The parties entered three short-term Space Act Agreements, but the plaintiff claimed it also had a long-term lease based on a contracting officer’s assurances and its own investments in the facility; after NASA terminated the short-term agreements, the plaintiff sued for breach of express and implied contracts, quantum meruit, and equitable estoppel. The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing those claims while leaving one implied-duty claim for further proceedings. The court reasoned that the contracting officer lacked authority to bind NASA to any long-term lease, so no such contract (express or implied) existed, and contractors are charged with verifying a government agent’s actual authority regardless of any misrepresentations. Equitable remedies were unavailable because the government cannot be estopped from denying unauthorized actions.

business & regulatoryfederal powerpropertyprocedure

Margaret Abare, a U.S. Postal Service mail handler, filed an EEOC disability-discrimination grievance and later claimed that email exchanges with a Postal Service attorney created an enforceable $180,000 settlement agreement. The attorney had offered that amount “inclusive of compensation and attorney’s fees,” and Abare accepted, but the attorney lacked actual authority to settle for more than $5,000 and had not obtained the required approval. The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. It held that no binding contract existed because government agents must act within their actual authority, contractors bear the risk of ascertaining that authority, and the email exchanges omitted material terms such as the type of retirement benefits. The court relied on longstanding Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent requiring parties dealing with the government to “turn square corners” and verify an agent’s authority.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

Miranda Chu filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program seeking compensation for a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a vaccine, claiming she met the requirements of the Vaccine Injury Table. The Chief Special Master denied entitlement after four years of proceedings, concluding that Chu had not satisfied two of the Table’s qualifying criteria (QAI 3 and 4). The Court of Federal Claims granted Chu’s motion for review, vacated the denial, and remanded the case for a new decision within 90 days. The court held that the Special Master’s ruling was arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law because it improperly converted the Table’s checklist-style criteria into a full causation-in-fact analysis and disregarded contemporaneous medical records and specialist diagnoses without expert support. The opinion emphasized that the Vaccine Program is intended to provide a streamlined, pro-claimant process with a presumption of causation once Table requirements are met.

healthcareprocedure

Vinsys IT Hub LLC, an SBA 8(a) small business providing IT services, sued in the Court of Federal Claims after the National Library of Medicine issued a new five-year solicitation for software development and maintenance work as a general small-business set-aside rather than under the 8(a) program that had covered the prior 2019–2024 contract. Vinsys argued that the agency could not remove the requirement from the 8(a) program without first obtaining the SBA’s concurrence, while the government maintained that the solicitation was a new contract for which only written notice to the SBA was required. The court denied Vinsys’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government’s cross-motion, holding that NLM had complied with the applicable regulation by furnishing the SBA a sixteen-page memorandum justifying its new-requirement determination and by providing the required written notice. Because the agency’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious, the court ruled that Vinsys had not succeeded on the merits and was therefore not entitled to injunctive relief.

business & regulatory

In Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC v. United States, a construction contractor challenged a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers solicitation amendment that required a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) under Executive Order 14063 for a large-scale federal project, arguing it violated the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) by restricting full and open competition. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the protest in part, enjoining the PLA requirement for this specific solicitation (WSLP-114), ordering the agency to justify any exception under FAR 22.504(d), remove the mandate, and allow revised bids, while denying broader relief to invalidate the Executive Order itself. The court reasoned that the PLA mandate improperly excluded responsible offerors and disregarded market research, consistent with its prior rulings in related cases, but it lacked jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to issue a facial injunction against the EO across all procurements, limiting its review to the as-applied challenge in this instance.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

In Moyer v. United States, plaintiff Cole Thomas Moyer challenged the Army Board for Correction of Military Records’ denial of relief from a debt incurred after his disenrollment from the Virginia Tech ROTC program, and sought a refund of payments made to the government. The Court of Federal Claims denied Moyer’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government’s cross-motion, thereby dismissing the case. The court found that the administrative record supported the conclusion that Moyer had been properly advised of his rights during the disenrollment process in accordance with applicable Army regulations. It further held that any procedural error was harmless because Moyer could not show prejudice from the alleged failure to advise him of his rights. The court concluded that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

procedurefederal power

The case involved a bid protest by Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. challenging the National Nuclear Security Administration’s award of an administrative support services contract for the safe transportation of nuclear material to Harkcon, Inc. under a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business set-aside solicitation. The plaintiff alleged that the agency’s evaluation of Harkcon’s quotation, best-value determination, and decision to allow Harkcon to compete were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief plus discovery. The Court of Federal Claims denied the plaintiff’s motions for discovery and judgment on the administrative record, granted the government’s and intervenor’s cross-motions, and denied a permanent injunction. It reasoned that Harkcon was properly eligible to compete, the agency’s evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and the plaintiff had not succeeded on the merits.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involves Christine E. Stahl, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, who challenged her 2017 separation from active duty as involuntary. She argued that the Air Force and the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) improperly disregarded her emails requesting to withdraw her separation and that the Wing Commander failed to provide a required written indorsement explaining the denial of her request, in violation of regulations and prior court instructions. In a 2023 order, the Court of Federal Claims had remanded the matter to the Board to review all evidence and address these issues. Following the Board's actions on remand, the court granted Stahl's motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied the government's cross-motion, finding that the Board again failed to properly consider the evidence or follow the remand instructions regarding the withdrawal requests and indorsement requirement. The court therefore remanded the case once more to the AFBCMR for reconsideration consistent with its opinion.

federal powerprocedure

Spectre Corporation sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that NASA breached a 2011 Space Act Agreement and a 2012 Exclusive Patent License Agreement to commercialize NASA’s silicon-carbide pressure sensor technology, as well as the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under both contracts; the company sought repayment of fees, project costs, and lost profits after NASA terminated the license and stopped performance under the SAA. Earlier in the case the court had dismissed the lost-profits claim. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the government’s motion and denied Spectre’s, holding that NASA had not breached either agreement or the implied covenant. The undisputed facts showed that Spectre failed to make required payments before Milestone 3, that NASA’s termination and decision to let the SAA expire were therefore permitted by the contracts, and that the government’s conduct did not violate any implied duty of good faith.

business & regulatoryfederal powerpropertyprocedure

In Weiss v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, petitioner Edwin Weiss, a cardiologist, sought compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program after developing Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) shortly following a November 2016 influenza vaccination; he claimed residual symptoms lasted more than six months. A special master denied the petition, finding that Weiss had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his GBS or its effects persisted beyond the six-month severity threshold required by the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c). The Court of Federal Claims denied Weiss’s motion for review and upheld the special master’s decision. The court held that the special master had reviewed the full record, drawn reasonable inferences from medical evidence indicating recovery, and reached a rational conclusion, rendering the ruling neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion under the applicable standard of review.

healthcareprocedure

The case involved multiple consolidated bid protests by construction contractors challenging federal agencies' requirements that bidders on contracts over $35 million enter into project labor agreements (PLAs) with unions. Earlier in the litigation, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that the agencies' PLA mandates were arbitrary and capricious for ignoring their own market research on reduced competition and violating statutory requirements for full and open competition. After the government took corrective action to remove the PLA requirements from the solicitations, the plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction barring any future re-implementation of the policy, while the government moved to dismiss on grounds of mootness. The court denied the injunction requests and granted dismissal, holding that its jurisdiction is limited to deciding the specific protests before it rather than prospectively enjoining executive policy, and that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm from possible future PLA mandates given the agencies' stated intent to follow the prior ruling.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

In Garcia v. United States, a pro se plaintiff, a retired Army sergeant, filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking an increase in combat-related special compensation (CRSC) and back pay. The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6), arguing the claim was barred by res judicata from a prior 2022 suit that had been dismissed and affirmed on appeal. The court granted dismissal in March 2025, finding all three res judicata elements met: identical parties, a final judgment on the merits, and the same transactional facts. Plaintiff then sought reconsideration under RCFC 59 and 60, citing purported new evidence and arguing that res judicata did not apply. The court denied reconsideration, holding that the evidence was either previously considered or failed to establish new operative facts, that all res judicata elements had been satisfied, and that plaintiff had not shown any mistake, oversight, or other ground for relief.

procedure

In Hoffman v. United States, plaintiff James B. Hoffman alleged that the U.S. Postal Service infringed two of his registered copyrights. The case, originally filed in district court in 2023 and later transferred to the Court of Federal Claims, prompted a government motion to dismiss. During a status conference, Hoffman conceded that any claims before February 2020 were time-barred and stated he would voluntarily dismiss if USPS confirmed it was not using his materials in the preceding three years. The court stayed the motion to dismiss and directed the parties to file a joint status report by May 2, 2025, after the government shares the results of its prior investigation or conducts a limited new review of its electronic files; if no resolution occurs, Hoffman must file an amended complaint by May 16, 2025. The court reasoned that sharing the existing investigation findings, already conducted by outside counsel after Hoffman's demand letter, could efficiently resolve the long-pending dispute without further litigation.

propertyprocedurefederal power

Sunrez Corporation, a small business, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims over a 2014 Small Business Innovative Research contract with the Air Force to develop prototype composite 463L air-cargo pallets and a technical data package. After the parties’ relationship ended during Phase II amid disputes over data rights, Sunrez alleged that the Air Force breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by instead pursuing an all-aluminum pallet design through a separate contractor (UDRI) under a Rapid Innovation Fund effort and declining to award Sunrez a Phase III contract. Following earlier rulings that narrowed the case to this single claim, the parties completed discovery and filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted the government’s motion and denied Sunrez’s, holding that the undisputed facts showed no breach of the implied duty, and it therefore entered judgment for the United States.

business & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement action filed in 2019 by E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS against the United States, alleging infringement of patents on data processing systems and markup languages used for financial accounting and data manipulation, primarily involving SEC analytical systems and the FDIC’s BankFindSuite. After claim construction and the start of fact discovery, the plaintiffs moved to file a Third Amended Complaint and to compel additional documents. Following status conferences and briefing, the Court of Federal Claims granted leave to amend, finding the standard lenient and no concrete prejudice to the government, and granted the motion to compel in part by directing the plaintiffs to refine their requests for readily available documents such as representative system versions. The court also set deadlines for infringement contentions on the FDIC system, required a joint status report by April 2025 confirming claim narrowing to 30 and discovery progress, and denied the government’s motion to clarify the scheduling order, exercising its discretion to manage the case schedule while leaving later deadlines unchanged.

business & regulatoryprocedurepropertyfederal power

In Sarah E. Price v. United States, the plaintiff sought just compensation after the federal government, acting under the National Trails System Act, took more than half of her residential property in Atlanta’s Piedmont Heights neighborhood in 2017 to create a segment of the Atlanta Eastside BeltLine trail; an earlier ruling had already established that the action constituted a Fifth Amendment taking. The sole remaining issue was the amount of compensation owed. The government argued that benefits from the trail project increased the market value of Price’s remaining land enough to fully offset any loss, so that no payment was required under the doctrine of special benefits. The Court of Federal Claims rejected that position, holding that only benefits specifically tied to ownership of the remaining parcel may be offset against compensation and that crediting general community-wide advantages would violate the Takings Clause. The court therefore awarded Price $684,429, exclusive of interest, and directed the parties to address the calculation of interest from the date of taking.

propertyfederal power

The case involved The Kennedy Collective, a nonprofit, suing the United States after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration awarded it a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) valued at an estimated $13 million for personal protective equipment and cleaning supplies during the early COVID-19 response. Kennedy pre-purchased $2.1 million in inventory to meet potential urgent orders but received only about $609,000 in actual purchases over three years, leading to expired goods and over $380,000 in disposal costs; it sought reimbursement, which the agency denied. The Court of Federal Claims granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court held that the BPA was not a binding contract because it served only as a non-binding framework for future "call orders," with no minimum purchase requirements or other enforceable obligations that the parties intended to create. Without a contract providing a sufficiently certain basis to determine breach and remedies, claims for breach or violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing could not proceed.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case is a 2017 patent infringement suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in which plaintiff Giesecke & Devrient accused the U.S. government of infringing patents covering e-passport readers, with Idemia Identity & Security USA intervening as a third-party defendant. After claim construction and extended discovery, the plaintiff filed two motions to compel production of documents, source code, and related information from the government (concerning newly accused devices and e-passport processes) and from Idemia (concerning legacy software, CAT system sales via third-party donations to airports, and reader testing). At oral argument, the government agreed to produce responsive materials except those potentially protected by law enforcement privilege, while several Idemia disputes were resolved or mooted. The court granted the motions in part, deferring the privilege issue for further meet-and-confer efforts, finding the requested materials relevant and not unduly burdensome under standard discovery rules, and directing the parties to file a joint status report by February 7, 2025.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In MVL USA, Inc. v. United States, multiple large construction companies challenged federal agencies’ authority to require prospective contractors on projects exceeding $35 million to enter project labor agreements with unions, as mandated by Executive Order 14063 and implemented through 2024 FAR Council rules. The United States Court of Federal Claims granted the plaintiffs’ motions for judgment on the administrative record and denied the government’s cross-motion. The court held that the agencies’ actions were arbitrary and capricious because they reversed earlier market research findings—showing the agreements would reduce competition, raise costs, and create inefficiencies—based solely on presidential policy rather than any statutory exception to the requirement of full and open competition in federal procurements.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentfederal power