19-0626V
Fed. Cl.Sep 2, 2025Background
- Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging a cerebral vascular injury from a meningococcal vaccine administered August 11, 2016.
- A Special Master issued a decision dismissing the petition on January 3, 2025.
- On January 13, 2025, petitioner moved under Vaccine Rule 18 to redact her name from the publicly posted decision.
- Petitioner submitted an affidavit stating she works in a public-facing role and has a history of being stalked arising from workplace interactions, arguing public disclosure would increase her safety risk.
- Respondent did not oppose the redaction motion. The Rule 18 amendment (effective July 29, 2024) requires documentary showing of adverse effects to personal safety or employment for redaction requests.
- The Special Master granted the minimal redaction (reducing petitioner’s name to initials), concluding petitioner substantiated the safety risk and instructing the Clerk to change the caption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner met the standard to redact her name from a publicly posted Vaccine Act decision | Petitioner submitted affidavit showing concrete prior stalking and a public-facing job, arguing publication would facilitate further stalking | Respondent did not file a response or contest the request | Granted: petitioner substantiated a risk to personal safety under Vaccine Rule 18(c)(1)(B); minimal redaction ordered |
| Applicable redaction standard under the Vaccine Act / Vaccine Rule 18 | Petitioner emphasized minimal, privacy-protecting redaction and provided specific evidence of risk | No competing legal submission from respondent; Special Master noted precedent split (common-law balancing vs FOIA-like approach) | Special Master acknowledged the split but applied Rule 18’s documentary requirement and exercised discretion to grant redaction based on the record and lack of objection |
Key Cases Cited
- W.C. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (2011) (court applied a FOIA-like balancing approach and emphasized the government’s interest in public disclosure)
- K.L. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 123 Fed. Cl. 497 (2015) (upheld special master's discretion to require petitioners to substantiate redaction requests and to evaluate them case-by-case)