McKenzie v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-1280
Fed. Cl.Jun 15, 2017Background
- Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging Guillain-Barré Syndrome caused by a September 19, 2013 influenza vaccination.
- The parties filed a joint stipulation and the Chief Special Master issued a decision awarding damages on December 22, 2016.
- Petitioner moved to redact his last name from the public decision, citing safety concerns related to a close family member’s mental health.
- Respondent declined to take a position advocating disclosure and deferred to the Special Master's discretion.
- The Special Master considered the statutory disclosure rule (42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B) and Vaccine Rule 18(b)) and relevant case law regarding privacy redactions.
- The Special Master granted the motion, ordering the public decision and this order redacted to petitioner’s initials "P.M.".
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner’s name must remain public in the Vaccine Program decision | Redaction necessary due to safety concerns for close family member and privacy interests | Defers to Special Master's discretion; does not advocate disclosure | Granted: petitioner’s surname redacted to initials (P.M.) |
| Whether disclosure of petitioner’s identity is required to serve Vaccine Act purposes | Petitioner argued no public purpose outweighs privacy here | Respondent offered no suggestion that disclosure serves a public purpose | Court agreed that disclosure was not necessary to effectuate public purposes |
| Standard for redaction under §12(d)(4)(B) and Vaccine Rule 18(b) | Sought redaction under the statutory privacy exception | Respondent accepted application of statute and rule and deferred | Redaction ordered consistent with statute and rule |
| Precedent permitting non-disclosure of petitioner identity | Argued W.C. supports non-disclosure where no public purpose | Respondent did not contest applicability of W.C. | Court relied on W.C. rationale to redact petitioner’s name |
Key Cases Cited
- W.C. v. HHS, 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (held disclosure of petitioner’s name not required where no relevant public purpose outweighs privacy)
- Federal Labor Relations Auth. v. United States Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1992) (articulated that absent a public purpose any threatened privacy invasion is clearly unwarranted)