Filed: Dec. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2018
Summary: UNPUBLISHED ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR REDACTION 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On October 25, 2018, petitioners filed a motion to redact the undersigned's October 24, 2018 Decision based on the parties' stipulation. Petitioners' Motion ("Pet. Mot.") dated Oct. 25, 2018 (ECF No. 91). For the foregoing reasons, petitioners' motion is GRANTED. I. Relevant Procedural History On April 28, 2014, C.L. and K.N. ("petitioners") filed a petition in the National Vaccine
Summary: UNPUBLISHED ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR REDACTION 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On October 25, 2018, petitioners filed a motion to redact the undersigned's October 24, 2018 Decision based on the parties' stipulation. Petitioners' Motion ("Pet. Mot.") dated Oct. 25, 2018 (ECF No. 91). For the foregoing reasons, petitioners' motion is GRANTED. I. Relevant Procedural History On April 28, 2014, C.L. and K.N. ("petitioners") filed a petition in the National Vaccine I..
More
UNPUBLISHED
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR REDACTION1
NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On October 25, 2018, petitioners filed a motion to redact the undersigned's October 24, 2018 Decision based on the parties' stipulation. Petitioners' Motion ("Pet. Mot.") dated Oct. 25, 2018 (ECF No. 91). For the foregoing reasons, petitioners' motion is GRANTED.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On April 28, 2014, C.L. and K.N. ("petitioners") filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioners alleged that as a result of a diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis ("DTaP") vaccine administered to their son, K.M.N., on or about September 23, 2011, K.M.N. suffered from seizures and developmental delays. Petition at 1.
On October 23, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation recommending an award of compensation to petitioners. Stipulation (ECF No. 89). The undersigned issued a decision based on the parties' stipulation on October 24, 2018. Decision dated Oct. 24, 2018 (ECF No. 90). The same day, petitioners filed a motion to redact their names to initials in the decision. Pet. Mot. at 1. In support of this request, petitioners state that they "do not want the public having access to the specific identity of . . . KMN as beneficiary of the funds, or Petitioners connection to KMN's estate or trust." Id. They express "concern for the potential of persons attempting undue influence over KMN's care or funds." Id.
Respondent filed a response on October 26, 2018, outlining the standards for a motion for redaction and deferring to the undersigned's discretion regarding what information, if any, should be redacted. Respondent's Response ("Resp. Res.") dated Oct. 26, 2018 (ECF No. 93).
This matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Discussion
A motion for redaction is governed by section 12(d)(4)(B) of the Vaccine Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). That section provides that information concerning "medical files and similar files" may be redacted if its disclosure "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy." Id. What constitutes a "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy" requires balancing petitioners' "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), aff'd, 704 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). While a petitioner has an interest in keeping sensitive medical or other embarrassing information private, the public has an interest in disclosure, so as to increase public awareness of vaccines and the 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 in decisions, to enable the reader to follow and understand the decision maker's rationale." Castagna v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-411V, 2011 WL 4348135, at *13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr., Aug. 25, 2011).
Although the Vaccine Rules make mandatory the redaction of a minor's name, adult petitioners' names, which are not similarly protected automatically, may also be redacted if the petitioner establishes proper grounds for redaction. 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."). The undersigned will permit redaction in cases, such as this, where a specialized showing is made.
The facts and circumstances of this case warrant redaction of petitioners' names to initials. Petitioners have made an adequate showing for redaction. Accordingly, petitioners' motion for redaction of the names in the decision to initials is GRANTED.
Thus, the public version of the decision based on the parties' stipulation shall be redacted to include only petitioners' initials, C.L. and K.N. Moreover, the undersigned further directs the clerk to amend the case caption3 to the following:
C.L. and K.N.,
on behalf of their minor son, K.M.N.,
Petitioners,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.