D.S. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
10-77
Fed. Cl.May 10, 2017Background
- Petitioner D.S. filed a Vaccine Act claim alleging Miller-Fisher variant Guillain-Barré Syndrome caused by an HPV vaccine dose received in 2007.
- The court granted entitlement to compensation in May 2015; petitioner’s name was redacted to initials early in the case.
- A government proffer detailing specific items of compensation and dollar amounts was accepted and attached to the March 10, 2017 Decision Awarding Damages.
- Petitioner moved to redact the damages decision and the proffer (Tab A), seeking deletion of treating physician names, specific medical items, and all payment amounts, citing privacy concerns and past identity theft.
- Respondent raised concerns but deferred to the Chief Special Master’s judgment; the motion was ripe for decision.
- The Chief Special Master granted redaction of treating physicians’ names and certain specific medical/itemized compensation details, but denied redaction of payment amounts and overall Tab A payment figures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether financial amounts and itemized compensation in a Vaccine Program damages decision/proffer may be redacted under 42 U.S.C. §300aa-12(d)(4)(B) | Publication of payment amounts and proffered items will risk identification, worsen petitioner’s vulnerability due to disability, and exacerbate harm from prior identity theft; thus privacy outweighs public interest | Respondent raised concerns about the requested breadth of redaction but deferred to the Special Master’s discretion to balance privacy and public interest | Denied: petitioner failed to show privacy interest outweighs public interest as to payment amounts; amounts remain public |
| Whether names of treating physicians and certain specific medical items should be redacted | These details are unnecessary and increase risk of identification and privacy invasion | Respondent deferred; urged court to weigh interests | Granted: names of treating physicians and specified medical goods/medications redacted |
| Whether petitioner’s general desire for privacy or past identity theft justifies redacting entire Tab A of the proffer | Argued that Tab A disclosure could combine with prior circulating information to identify her; requested full Tab A redaction | Respondent deferred to court; emphasized public interest in disclosure of proffers | Denied in full: no specific showing that Tab A payment amounts would lead to identification; selective redactions granted instead |
| Scope of public interest in disclosure of damages decisions and proffers | Petition argued public need is outweighed by privacy here | Respondent argued public interest exists in understanding vaccine injuries, treatment, and compensation; left ultimate balance to court | Court held public interest in transparency (items awarded and dollar valuations) outweighs petitioner’s privacy interest for payment amounts; but permitted redaction of less relevant, identifying treatment details |
Key Cases Cited
- W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (2011) (discussing balancing petitioner privacy against public purpose of Vaccine Act in redaction decisions)