Windhorst v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
13-647
| Fed. Cl. | Feb 24, 2017Background
- Petitioner Bobbie A. Windhorst filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging CIDP caused by a 2010 influenza vaccination and submitted multiple affidavits and medical records.
- A fact hearing was held due to conflicts between medical records and witness accounts; Special Master Roth issued a Ruling on Onset on September 27, 2016.
- Petitioner moved to redact the Ruling to refer to herself and witnesses only by initials; respondent opposed.
- The legal question centered on whether disclosure of names (and related medical information) in special-master decisions constitutes a “clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy” under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B).
- Petitioner offered no specific factual showing of harm or unusual circumstances warranting redaction; she did not provide a proposed redacted version as contemplated by the rules.
- Special Master Roth denied the motion, explaining the strong presumption of public access to judicial decisions, the narrow statutory redaction exception, and the petitioner’s failure to meet the substantial burden for redaction.
Issues
| Issue | Windhorst's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ruling should refer to petitioner and witnesses by initials (redaction of names) | Requested anonymity for petitioner and witnesses without providing factual justification | Public disclosure of decisions is the default; petitioner did not show a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy | Denied — petitioner failed to show the requisite invasion of privacy or extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether Vaccine Act §12(d)(4)(B)(ii) supports redaction of adult petitioners’ identifying information | Claimed entitlement to redaction under the statute and Vaccine Rule 18(b) | Statute is narrow; redaction applies only when disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy and objector shows it | Denied — statute construed narrowly; adult petitioners rarely entitled to redaction without strong factual showing |
| Whether witnesses’ names may be redacted | Sought redaction of friends’ and family members’ names along with petitioner’s | Witnesses have no statutory protection; no legal basis to redact witness names at petitioner’s request | Denied — statute protects claimants; witnesses’ names not protected absent independent showing |
| Whether public-interest and precedent justify denying redaction | Asserted privacy preference | Cited policy favoring disclosure for development of Vaccine Program law and precedent requiring strong showing for redaction | Denied — public access and law development weigh against redaction absent exceptional facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 559 (1978) (establishes common-law right of public access to judicial records)
- Rhone Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 284 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (discusses public access to court materials in federal claims context)
- W.C. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (2011) (Court of Federal Claims authorized name redaction in narrow circumstances while retaining medical details)
- R.K. on behalf of A.K. v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 125 Fed. Cl. 276 (2016) (upheld redaction where decision contained exceptionally detailed and sensitive minor’s medical history)
- Reidell v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 209 (2000) (parties cannot dictate public access to judicial decisions)