Woman Compensated for Vaccine Injury Seeks to Have Name Redacted Because She Works in Vaccine-Related Public Relations
From Berthold v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, decided by Court of Federal Claims Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on Feb. 11 but just posted on Westlaw:
Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration resulting from an influenza vaccine received on September 20, 2021 [and therefore filed for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]….
On November 20, 2024, I issued a Ruling on Entitlement in Petitioner’s favor. As the text of the Ruling sets forth, Petitioner had a right to seek redaction of this document, but needed to do so within the timeframe set by Vaccine Rule 18(b)[:] … “… Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy” ….
Petitioner did not so act. Accordingly, the Ruling was publicly posted on December 20, 2024, and it may now be found in legal research databases. On January 13, 2025, I issued a decision awarding damages based on the proffer agreed to by the parties.
The next day, Petitioner filed a timely motion to redact the damages decision. The attachment proposed redacting Petitioner’s name to her initials in the Decision, but was silent on the Proffer that had been attached to the Decision, which also had her full name. Petitioner also did not request redaction of the November Ruling….
Petitioner argues that the January 13th Damages Decision has the potential to impact her employment in pediatric public affairs for a large academic medical center. In her position, she promotes research and clinical care in pediatrics to the public, specifically related to childhood vaccinations. She represents her medical center which follows the American Academy of Pediatrics guidance on childhood vaccination, and often fields media queries concerning childhood vaccinations. She “does not want her experience with [a] poorly administered vaccine to become a story in itself that would interfere with her ability to advocate for vaccinations at large.”
Respondent proposes that I focus on whether the requested redactions “strike an appropriate balance between petitioner’s privacy interest in the information and the public’s interest in the Decision.” Respondent adds that there is a “significant Program interest in not having every case caption reduced to initials” which “would make the administration of the Program unmanageable, because the parties and the Court rely on citing precedent that is readily accessible and suitably differentiated from other cases in briefing and arguments.” Ultimately, however, Respondent does not believe it is appropriate to advocate in favor of disclosure of a petitione
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
