UNPUBLISHED

ORDER ON PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REDACT AND AMEND THE CAPTION1

NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.

On March 23, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the "Vaccine Act"). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") following her November 19, 2015 influenza ("flu") vaccination. Petition at 1. The undersigned issued a ruling on entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation on October 17, 2017. (ECF No. 18.)

Petitioner subsequently moved to redact the ruling on entitlement and to amend the caption of this case. (ECF No. 20) Specifically, petitioner seeks to have her full name reduced to initials in the ruling on entitlement specifically and in the case caption generally. (Id.) Petitioner indicated that she holds a position with an organization which engages in public health advocacy related to vaccination.2 (Id. at 3.) Petitioner expressed concern that public knowledge of the fact of her own personal vaccine injury claim would negatively impact her credibility and professional relationships. (Id.)

In a response filed on November 6, 2017, respondent provided a recitation of relevant case law, but ultimately concluded that "Respondent does not believe it is appropriate to advocate in favor of disclosure of a petitioner's information in any particular case, including this one, but rather defers to the special master's judgment as to whether petitioner's motion for redaction and/or amending of the case caption should be granted. . ." (ECF No. 21, p. 5.) Petitioner filed no reply.

Section12(d)(4)(B) of the Vaccine Act, in relevant part, provides that:

§ 12(d)(4)(B); See also Vaccine Rule 18(b).

In several cases, special masters have declined to redact information, other than changing the name of a minor child to initials. E.g., Langland v. HHS, No. 07-36V, 2011 WL 802695 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 3, 2011), affirmed on this point at 109 Fed. Cl. 421, fn. 1 (2013); Castagna v. HHS, No. 99-411V, 2011 WL 4348135 (Fed. Cl. Spec Mstr. Aug 25, 2011); House v. HHS, No. 99-406V, 2012 WL 402040 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 11, 2012); Anderson v. HHS, No. 08-396V, 2014 WL 3294656 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2014). However, in W.C. v. HHS, 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (Fed. Cl. 2011), the court held that disclosure of a petitioner's name in a decision is not necessary to effectuate the underlying purpose of the Vaccine Act's public disclosure requirements. In W.C., the court concluded that while disclosure of information linking petitioner to his injury does not necessarily constitute an "unwarranted invasion of privacy," "where `[t]here is no relevant public purpose to be weighed against [a] threatened invasion[,] . . . any invasion of privacy threatened by disclosure . . . is `clearly unwarranted.'" W.C., 100 Fed. Cl. at 461 (emphasis original) (quoting Federal Labor Relations Auth. V. United States Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d 503, 513 (2nd Cir. 1992).).

In this case, the undersigned agrees with the rationale expressed in W.C. Sensitivity to petitioner's particular professional concern in this instance outweighs the competing interest in disclosure. Petitioner's motion is therefore GRANTED.

Thus, the public version of the ruling on entitlement shall be redacted to include only petitioner's initials, B.L. Moreover, the undersigned further directs the clerk to amend the case caption3 to the following:

IT IS SO ORDERED.