Berthold v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
24-0417V
Fed. Cl.Mar 20, 2025Background
- Jessica Berthold filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging a shoulder injury from a flu vaccine.
- The Special Master ruled in her favor on entitlement and later awarded damages based on the parties’ agreed proffer.
- Berthold did not timely move to redact her name in the original public ruling, leading to its disclosure.
- After the damages decision was released, Berthold moved to have her name redacted from the decision, citing concerns about her employment in pediatric public affairs and vaccine advocacy.
- The respondent did not oppose or support the redaction but indicated excessive redactions would impede precedent research and case management.
- The Special Master denied the motion, reasoning that redaction would be futile since Berthold’s name and injury were already public, and no sensitive medical information was exposed in the damages decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to redact petitioner’s name from the damages decision | Disclosure could harm employment and advocacy work | Excessive redactions disrupt case administration; defer to court | Denied; redaction futile due to prior public disclosure |
| Standard for granting redaction | Alleged that risk to employment is a substantive, specific harm | Emphasized need for balance between privacy and public interest | Insufficient showing for redaction; no unwarranted invasion found |
| Timeliness and scope of redaction request | Redaction sought after damages decision, not original ruling | Pointed out petitioner did not timely seek redaction of earlier ruling | Timing and previous disclosure renders redaction ineffective |
| Precedent and public access to decisions | Advocated for protection of name due to unique employment risk | Cited need for public access, legal precedent clarity | Public interest and prior disclosure outweigh private concern |
Key Cases Cited
- W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (recognizing balancing test for redaction requests in Vaccine Act cases)
- Langland v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 421 (Fed. Cl. 2013) (adopting more stringent standard for redaction requests)
- K.N. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 142 Fed. Cl. 156 (Fed. Cl. 2023) (individualized analysis required for Vaccine Act redaction requests)