R.K. Ex Rel. A.K. v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services
125 Fed. Cl. 276
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Petitioners (R.K. on behalf of minor A.K.) sought redaction of a Special Master's September 28, 2015 decision and related orders, asking replacement of names with "John/Jane Doe" and redaction of the case number.
- Special Master stayed public posting, then issued a December 1, 2015 Order adopting an approach that replaced parties' names with initials but declined to redact the case number or the names of non-party medical practitioners.
- Petitioners moved for review of the Special Master's redaction order on December 31, 2015; the Government opposed and the matter was assigned to the Court of Federal Claims.
- Central legal question: scope of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B) (Vaccine Act privacy exemption) and whether the Special Master abused discretion by not redacting petitioner names with "Doe" or the case number.
- Court reviewed redaction as a question of law de novo, considered FOIA Exemption 6 parallels, and weighed statutory disclosure policy against privacy interests.
- Court affirmed the Special Master: initials are an appropriate redaction, replacing with "John/Jane Doe" is not required, and RCFC 79(a)(2) supports keeping the case number public.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Special Master erred by redacting names only to initials rather than using "John/Jane Doe" | Initials insufficient; Doe + case-number redaction needed because internet availability defeats privacy | Initials balanced disclosure and privacy; redaction to Doe unnecessary and case-number redaction conflicts with court rules | Court: Initials adequate; Doe replacement not required; case number must remain public under RCFC 79(a)(2) |
| Whether case number must be redacted | Case number publicly searchable and should be redacted to protect privacy | RCFC 79(a)(2) mandates file numbers on filings; redacting all case numbers undermines rule and public interest | Court: Denied redaction of case number; public interest and rule prevail |
| Whether FOIA/Privacy principles require broader redaction (including non-minor petitioner names) | Vaccine Act privacy provision intended to allow broader name redaction to avoid linking medical details publicly | Special Master followed precedent balancing disclosure and privacy; W.C. approach reasonable | Court: FOIA Exemption 6 analog supports name redaction where linked to medical info, but initials suffice; full-name redaction to Doe not required |
| Whether Special Master abused discretion or misinterpreted Vaccine Act | Order was arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, contrary to law | Order consistent with statutory text, precedent, and RCFC rules | Court: No abuse or legal error; affirmed Special Master's Order |
Key Cases Cited
- Figueroa v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 715 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (remedial statutes construed to effectuate underlying purpose)
- Munn v. Sec'y of Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (standards of review for Special Master findings)
- Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005) (similar statutory language suggests pari passu interpretation)
- United States Dep't of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991) (FOIA Exemption 6 permits redaction of names when linked to personal information)
- Hawkins v. United States, 469 F.3d 993 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Shaw v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 609 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional discussion regarding review of Special Master decisions)
- W.C. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (2011) (Court of Federal Claims applied FOIA analog to support redacting petitioner names)