THOMAS L. GOWEN, Special Master.
On September 2, 2019, petitioner filed a motion to redact the August 29, 2019 decision dismissing petitioner's claim. Petitioner's Motion for Redaction ("Pet. Mot. Redact.") filed August 29, 2019 (ECF No. 97). For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's motion is
On August 3, 2016, A.H. ("petitioner") filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
On August 28, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition. Petitioner's Motion for Dismissal ("Pet. Mot. Dismiss.") (ECF No. 95). On August 29, 2019, I issued a decision in accordance with that motion. Decision (ECF No. 96).
On September 2, 2019, petitioner filed a motion to reduce her name to initials in the case caption and in the first line of the decision. Pet. Mot. Redact. Petitioner avers that the record contains objective evidence of the abnormal physiological conditions which she alleged were caused by the vaccines she received. Petitioner avers that the record also contains objective evidence of psychosocial stress. Public disclosure of the decision linked to petitioner, either in actuality or the mere risk thereof, would exacerbate her psychosocial stress. Petitioner avers that her right of privacy is not outweighed by a public interest. Therefore, public disclosure of the decision linked with her name would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
On September 3, 2019, respondent filed a response outlining the standards for a motion for redaction and concluding: "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 should be granted, applying the analytical framework discussed above." Resp. Response filed September 3, 2019 (ECF No. 99). That same day, petitioner filed a reply. Pet. Reply filed September 3, 2019 (ECF No. 100).
This matter is now ripe for adjudication.
A motion for redaction is governed by the Vaccine Act, section 12(d)(4)(B), which provides that information concerning "medical files and other files" may redacted if its disclosure "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy." Id. What constitutes a "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy" requires balancing petitioner's "right of privacy against the public purpose of the Vaccine Act." W.C. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440, 460 (2011). While a petitioner has an interest in keeping private sensitive medical or other embarrassing information, the public has an interest in disclosure so as to increase public awareness of vaccine and medical conditions they may or may not cause. Id. at 461. In other words, sensitive information is often the subject of the litigation, and "in cases where sensitive information is the subject of the dispute, that information is routinely disclosed, to enable the reader to follow and understand the decision maker's rationale." Castagna v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 2011 WL 4348135, *13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 25, 2011).
However, in W.C., the Federal Circuit held that disclosure of a petitioner's name 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 Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d 503, 513 (2nd Cir. 1992)).
It is also noted that the Vaccine Rules requires the redaction of a minor's name. In contrast, an adult petitioner's name is not automatically redacted, but may be redacted if the petitioner establishes proper grounds for doing so. See R.V. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08-504V, 2016 WL 3776888, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 10, 2016) ("[A] petitioner needs to make some showing to justify the relief of redaction; redaction is not available simply at a petitioner's beck and call.") In cases such as this, where the petitioner makes a specialized showing in support of redaction, I will grant that request.
Petitioner has made an adequate showing, based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case, for redacting petitioner's full name to initials.
Thus, the public version of the decision dismissing petitioner's claim shall be redacted to include only petitioner's initials, A.H.