R. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 11-206

Petitioner Stephanie Roscoe, as representative of the estate of B.R., filed a Vaccine Program petition in 2011 alleging vaccines given on March 31, 2009 caused fever, pain, confusion, and death; entitlement was awarded June 8, 2020 after a January 8, 2020 hearing.
The May 9, 2022 Ruling on Set-Off cited a confidential settlement agreement from a Georgia civil action produced to the court under conditions protecting the settlement amount and insurers’ identities.
On May 23, 2022 petitioner moved to redact the Georgia state and county, the civil defendants’ identities, the insurers’ identities, and the settlement amount from the Ruling on Set-Off; respondent did not oppose.
The motion was considered under Vaccine Act § 12(d)(4)(B), which permits redaction of medical and similar files when disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy, requiring a balance of privacy and the Act’s public disclosure purpose.
The Special Master found petitioner made an adequate showing, but modified some proposed redactions for internal consistency and refused to redact non-confidential terms (e.g., "State Court," "Emergency Department/Room").
The court ordered the Ruling to be redacted using the Court’s placeholder format ($[...]) and provided a 14-day window for objections before publicly filing the redacted ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Ruling may redact identities and settlement amount from a cited confidential civil settlement	Roscoe: settlement was produced conditionally; disclosure of state/county, defendants, insurers, and amount would violate confidentiality and privacy	HHS: did not object (previously agreed to confidentiality by email)	Granted: redaction allowed under §12(d)(4)(B) balancing test; petitioner made adequate showing
Whether adult-identifying information (non-minor names/locations) is automatically protected or requires a special showing	Roscoe: sought redaction of specific non-minor identifiers tied to confidential settlement	HHS: silent/no opposition	Held: adult identifiers are not automatically protected but may be redacted upon a proper showing; here the showing was sufficient
Whether generic or non-identifying terms should be redacted (e.g., "State Court," "Emergency Department")	Roscoe: proposed broader redactions including some generic terms	HHS: no objection	Denied for those terms: court will not redact words that do not identify confidential information and adjusted petitioner’s redactions for consistency

W.C. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (2011) (balancing petitioner privacy against Vaccine Act public-disclosure purpose for redaction)
W.C. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 704 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming lower court's approach to privacy/public-interest balancing)