S.B. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 14-918

Petitioner Steven Brass filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging shingles and post‑herpetic neuralgia after an influenza vaccine administered October 26, 2011.
Petitioner moved to amend the case caption to use only his initials (i.e., redact his name), claiming privacy and potential professional harm from public disclosure of certain medical information.
Respondent opposed the motion.
The Vaccine Program treats filings as confidential pre‑decision; only parties and adjudicators may view them until a ruling or decision is issued (Vaccine Rule 18(a); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa‑12(d)(4)(A)).
The special master found the request premature because no ruling or decision has yet discussed facts that might warrant redaction, and Petitioner cited no authority permitting preemptive redaction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the caption should be redacted to initials now	Brass: public disclosure of medical details would harm him professionally and is private	HHS: opposed (argues motion improper/timeliness and no authority for preemptive redaction)	Denied as premature; invite renewal after a ruling specifying redactable facts
Whether the filing is properly styled as a motion to amend the caption	Brass styled it as an amendment to caption to redact his name	Respondent: implied that styling is improper; motion should be to redact	Court treated the filing as a motion to redact and rejected it on procedural grounds
Whether Vaccine Rules provide for adult petitioner anonymity	Brass: sought anonymity	HHS: no specific argument needed — cited rules govern confidentiality predecision	Court: Vaccine Rule 16(b) protects minors but there is no analogous rule for adults; no basis now for redaction
Whether early redaction is authorized without a decision discussing sensitive facts	Brass: requested proactive redaction to avoid later disclosure	HHS: opposed; procedural rules restrict access predecision but public posting may occur thereafter unless timely redaction sought then	Denied; petitioner may renew after a ruling identifying facts eligible for redaction

United States v. Edwards, 241 F.R.D. 146 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (permitted amendment of caption to correct a party’s legal name)