Tarsell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 133 Fed. Cl. 805

Petitioner Emily Tarsell, executrix of Christina Tarsell's estate, moved to redact all medical provider and facility names from the Court’s June 30, 2017 Opinion and Order under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B).
Petitioner claimed an expectation of privacy and argued disclosure would exacerbate the family’s grief but gave no detailed factual justification for redaction.
Respondent did not press for disclosure and deferred to the Court to apply established Vaccine Act redaction analysis.
The Vaccine Act presumes public disclosure of decisions but permits redaction where disclosure of medical files and similar information would be a “clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy,” and the objecting party bears a substantial burden to justify nondisclosure.
The Senate Report accompanying the Vaccine Act indicates that provider names and related vaccination details should generally be public record to widen knowledge about vaccine adverse reactions.
The Court noted that treating physicians’ and facilities’ names from the Special Master’s decision were already public and that disclosure of such information is routinely allowed in Vaccine Act opinions; it denied Petitioner’s redaction request and ordered publication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether names of treating providers/facilities in a Vaccine Act decision must be redacted under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B)	Tarsell: estate has privacy interest; disclosure would worsen family grief; request redaction of provider/facility names	United States: will not advocate disclosure but defers to Court applying established framework; implies names need not be protected absent strong showing	Denied. Petitioner failed to meet the substantial burden to show disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy; names routinely disclosed and already public in Special Master’s decision

K.L. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 123 Fed. Cl. 497 (2015) (Congress intended Vaccine Act litigation information to be public; caution about names but disclosure favored)
W.C. v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (2011) (discusses Vaccine Act redaction standards and privacy analysis)
Mondello v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 132 Fed. Cl. 316 (2017) (routine disclosure of treating-provider identities in Vaccine Act decisions)
K.T. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 132 Fed. Cl. 175 (2017) (same)
D’Tiole v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 132 Fed. Cl. 421 (2017) (same)