UNPUBLISHED

RULING ON PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR REDACTION1

THOMAS L. GOWEN, Special Master.

On January 20, 2011, B.A. ("petitioner") filed a claim in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Vaccine Act" or the "Program").2 Petitioner received a second dose of the Gardasil vaccination for human papillomavirus ("HPV") (referred to hereafter as "the HPV vaccine") on January 23, 2008 and a third dose on June 3, 2008. Petitioner alleges that as a result of these vaccines, she suffered severe, chronic headaches and various other sequelae. Amended Petition at 1. On December 6, 2018, I issued a ruling that petitioner had demonstrated her entitlement to compensation (ECF No. 153) ("the Entitlement Ruling"). Petitioner has now requested, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), that I redact her name throughout the ruling to protect her privacy. Motion for Redaction dated December 18, 2018 (ECF No. 155). For the reasons stated below, I hereby grant petitioner's motion.

I. Procedural History

Petitioner filed the present motion on December 18, 2018. She requests that her first name and her full name be reduced to her initials in the ruling on entitlement. She notes that the ruling details her medical history before and after the vaccinations in question, including how she saw a psychiatrist and a neuropsychologist. She avers that this information is not currently known by her family (except her mother), her friends, and the public. She avers that disclosure of this information would be personally embarrassing, as well as an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

On December 19, 2018, respondent filed a response to petitioner's motion for redaction (ECF No. 156). After summarizing the relevant case law, respondent concludes: "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." Response at 5. Petitioner has not filed a reply. This matter is ripe for adjudication.

II. Discussion

The Vaccine Act, section 12(d)(4)(B), 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 sensitive medical or other embarrassing information private, 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)).

Here, I agree with the rationale expressed in W.C. Petitioner has asserted an adequate, understandable interest in avoiding disclosure of her full name in connection with her medical history. Her full name does not bear on public awareness of vaccines and the medical conditions they may or may not cause. Nor does her full name bear on a reader's ability to understand the rationale for entitlement of this claim.

Accordingly, I will grant petitioner's motion for redaction of the entitlement ruling. I will similarly redact the case caption. Petitioner will be referred to only as B.A. going forward.3

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, I hereby determine that petitioner has established grounds for redaction of her name in the ruling on entitlement and going forward. Her motion is hereby GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the case caption to the following:

Additionally, prior to posting the ruling on entitlement onto the Court's website, I will reduce petitioner's name to her initials.

IT IS SO ORDERED.