TARSELL v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
1:10-vv-00251
| Fed. Cl. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Petitioner Emily Tarssell, as Executrix of Christina Tarssell's estate, seeks redaction of medical provider names from the Court's June 30, 2017 Vaccine Act decision.
- Petitioner argues privacy protections under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B) require redaction of medical information in Vaccine Act proceedings.
- Respondent declines to advocate for disclosure but defers to the court's judgment under existing framework from Langland and related cases.
- Statutory framework requires disclosure of Vaccine Act decisions unless disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
- Petitioner bears a substantial burden to show that redaction is warranted; the court assesses whether disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
- The Court finds the redaction category sought (provider names) is already public and routinely disclosed, noting the public policy favoring disclosure of adverse vaccine reactions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether provider names may be redacted under § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). | Tarssell argues redaction is required to protect privacy. | Respondent argues disclosure should follow the statute unless clearly unwarranted. | No redaction; disclosure favored. |
| Whether the petitioner bears a substantial burden to show a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. | Petitioner contends privacy concerns warrant redaction. | Burden on petitioner to show invasion of privacy is clearly unwarranted. | Petitioner failed to meet burden. |
| Whether the information sought to redact is already in the public domain and routinely disclosed. | Names of treating physicians were not redacted elsewhere and should be private. | Medical provider names are routinely disclosed in Vaccine Act decisions. | Information is already public; redaction not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- K.L. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 123 Fed. Cl. 497 (2015) (public disclosure of adverse vaccine information; provider names should be public)
- Mondello v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 132 Fed. Cl. 316 (2017) (provider names routinely disclosed in Vaccine Act decisions)
- K.T. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 132 Fed. Cl. 175 (2017) (provider identities and related information often disclosed)
- D’Tiole v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 132 Fed. Cl. 421 (2017) (public-record policy for Vaccine Act information)