Floyd v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 13-556

Petitioner Korey Floyd filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging a neurological demyelinating injury from a 10/18/2012 trivalent influenza vaccine.
The parties stipulated to compensation and the special master issued a written decision awarding compensation on May 2, 2016.
On May 13, 2016, Floyd moved to redact his name from the published decision, citing privacy concerns and quoting part of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B).
The Secretary opposed redaction, arguing the Vaccine Act generally requires disclosure of special master decisions and that petitioners know this when filing; redaction requires a special showing.
The special master reviewed the full statutory text and concluded the statute permits redaction only for trade secrets, privileged/confidential commercial or financial information, or medical/similar files whose disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Floyd did not argue his name fit those categories or make a special factual showing.
The motion to redact was denied; the May 2, 2016 decision will be posted publicly per Vaccine Rule 18(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner’s name should be redacted from a published Vaccine Act decision	Floyd: privacy interests warrant redaction; statute allows removing information when the submitter objects	Secretary: statute presumes disclosure; redaction requires a qualifying category (trade secret, privileged/confidential commercial/financial info, or medical/similar files) or a special showing	Denied — petitioner’s name does not fall within statutory categories and no special factual showing was made

W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (2011) (discussing when privacy interests may support redaction of Vaccine Program decisions)