Lamare v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
123 Fed. Cl. 497
| Fed. Cl. | 2015Background
- Lamare filed a vaccine claim and sought interim attorney fees and costs in 2012 under the Vaccine Act.
- Petition sought $50,210.69 in interim fees; respondent opposed interim awards arguing timing and lack of hardship.
- Special Master denied the interim fees petition on December 8, 2014, stating broad discretion and lack of hardship.
- Lamare moved for redaction of the Interim Fees Decision, name, and medical information under Vaccine Rule 18(b) in late 2014 and 2015.
- Special Master denied redaction on February 27, 2015 and again on May 22, 2015 after reconsideration, prompting Lamare to seek review in this court.
- This court (Judge Horn) reviews the Special Master’s redaction decision for compliance with the Vaccine Act and related Rules, ultimately denying the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the redaction order | Lamare argues for court review as a final compensation-related decision. | Secretary contends jurisdiction exists under Vaccine Act and Shaw for interim/related decisions. | Jurisdiction exists; review authorized for denial of redaction related to interim fees. |
| Whether Vaccine Rule 18(b) permits redaction in this interim context | Lamare asserts privacy interest justifies redaction of name and medical details. | Secretary argues no proper showing of clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy and requires case-specific justification. | Redaction denied; no sufficient particularized showing to justify redaction at interim stage. |
| Whether the Special Master abused discretion in denying redaction | Lamare highlights potential employment impact and personal privacy concerns warrant redaction. | Lamare failed to demonstrate a concrete privacy interest beyond general preference for anonymity. | No abuse of discretion; decision balanced public/private interests and followed precedent. |
| Whether public disclosure aligns with Vaccine Act goals | Public access not warranted for petitioner’s identifiable information. | Public disclosure furthers transparency; privacy protections exist but not for this case. | Court defers to Special Master’s balancing; not sufficient to mandate redaction at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- W.C. v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (2011) (public access vs privacy; balancing test under Vaccine Act privacy provisions)
- W.C. v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 704 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming publication/publication balance framework)
- Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 609 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Fed. Cir. held CFClaims jurisdiction to review interim fees decision as compensation-related)
- Bernhardt v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 82 Fed. Cl. 287 (2005) (court endorsed broader review of Special Master decisions under Vaccine Act)
- Spratling v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 37 F.3d 202 (1997) (discusses redaction authority and efficacy before the court)
- Lemire v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 60 F. Cl. 75 (2004) (limits on review of non-compensation decisions and redaction considerations)