# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DANIELLE JENNINGS, * No. 16

- 779V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran Petitioner, *

*

v. * Filed: October 19, 2020

* Reissued : April 22

, 202 1

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Re daction

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Scott W. Rooney , Nemes, Rooney P.C., Farmington Hills, MI, for petitioner; Darryl Wishard , U.S. Dep’t of Jus t i ce, Washington, DC, for respondent.

ORDER DENYING MOTION S FOR REDACTION *

Danielle Jennings alleged that the human papillomarvius vaccine caused h er various problems, including as t hma. Pet., filed June 30, 2016. A decision issued July 8, 2020 found tha t s he was not entitled to compensation

. CM/ECF 155.

Pur suant to 42 U.S.C. § 300 aa

– 12(d)(4) and Vaccine Rule 18(b), on Ju ly 21, 2020,

Ms. Jennni ngs filed a motion ( CM/ECF 156) requesting redaction of h er name and

medical information contained in the deci s ion. This motion was denied. Order, issued Sep t . 15, 2020 ( CM/ECF 167). Neit her the July 8, 2020 decision nor the September 15, 2020 order has been made available to the public via a posting on

the Court ’ s website.

* The parties were informed that this order would be made available to the public. Ms.
Jennings sought redaction of her decision, but her motions were denied. Orders, issued Oct. 19, 2020 and Sep. 15, 2020. After Ms. Jennings requested that the Court of Federal Claims review the orders denying redaction, the Court denied the motion for review. Order, issued Feb. 8, 2021. Accordingly, this order is being posted as originally submitted, except for modification to

this footnote.2

Ms. Jennings has filed two mo re mot i ons to re dact on Sep tember 29 , 2020.

One of these motions ( CM/ECF 172) again seeks reda ction of the July 8, 2020 decision. This motion is approximately two pages in length, accompanied by a proposed redacted version of the July 8, 2020 decision.

T he s e cond of these motions ( CM/ECF 173) seeks redaction of the
Sept ember 15, 2020 order. The motion is essentially the same as the other motion filed on September 29, 2020. The pro posed redaction of the September 15 , 2020

order removes one line.

T he Se ptem b er 29, 2020 motions dif fer from the July 21, 2020 motion. In the former motion, Ms. Jennings sought redaction of her name and her medical

conditions on the ground

s of potential emba rrassment and potential interference with obtaining a job. In the pr esen t ly pending motions, Ms. Jennings has not

so ught redaction of her name. Instead, Ms. Jennings has sought redaction of the medical conditions for which she sought compensation.

On October 5 , 2020, respondent filed a response to the two motions to red act ( CM/ECF 172 , 173). Respondent noted that Ms. Jennings had not submitted any additional evidence in these two motions to distinguish them from the original

motio n to redact. Re sp ’ t ’ s Resp. at 5. While respondent asserted t hat “ the reasons again state d by petitioner in these additional two Motions do not seem particularized to warrant the relief requested, ” respondent “ ultimately defers to t he Special Master ’ s judgment as to whether petitioner ’ s Motions should be granted. ”

Id.

The Septem ber 15, 2 020 o rder set forth the standards for evaluating requests

r edacti on , keyed to Ms. Jennings ’ s reque st to remove her name

. Under those standards, Ms. Jennings was required to make some showing about particular facts

and circ umstances that warrants redaction in h er c a se

.

The two pending motions do not make this i ndi vidualized argument. Ms. Jennings presents these general arguments: the disclosure of the medical

information “ will result in a clearly unwar ranted invasion of privacy and does not

advance the Act ’ s pu rp ose, ” “ [t]h e redaction[s] herein are for remova l of medical

inf ormation and files which cons titute a clearly unwarr anted inv asion of pri vacy

, ”

and “ [t]here exists no harm nor an y violation of the public policy purpose of the3

Act to allow reda ction of the P etit ioner ’ s name [ 1 ] and medical information. ”

P et ’ r ’ s M ot. at 2.

The breadt h of Ms. Jennings ’ arguments are th eir undo ing. If Ms. Jennings

could obtain redaction f

or these reasons, then Congress ’ s expect ation that decisions of special masters wou ld b e available to the public would be thwarted. As

d iscu ss ed in House v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 99

- 406V, 2012 WL

402040 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 11, 2012), the requirement about the content of a

decision from a s pecial master is that “ cert ain me dical information pertinent to the

evaluati on of pe titioner ’ s claim will be contained in an issued decision. ”

Here, especially with respect to the July 8, 2020 decision , the inf ormation that Ms. Jennings seeks to have redacted is essential to the e v aluat ion of her claim.

As analyzed in the July 8, 2020 decision, Ms. Jennings did not establish that she

suffered from most of the conditions for which she so ught compensation. To strip away those por tions of the July 8, 2020 decision that discuss the c onditi ons for

whi ch she sought compensation would make th e July 8, 2020 decision unintellig ible and useless to members of the public. Ms. Jennings has not justified

this outcome.

For these reasons, both of Ms. Jennings ’ s two September 29, 2020 motions

to reda ct are denied. 2

IT IS SO O RDERE D

.

s /Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran
Spe cial Master

1 The reference to “ Petitioner ’ s name ” appears to b e carried fo rward unintentionally as
petitioner proposed redacted version retains her name.

2 On Oct ober 14, 202 0, Ms. Jennings file d a motion for review of the September 15, 2020

order , denying redaction. The undersi gned will not make the July 8 , 2020 decision or the September 15, 2020 order denying redaction available to the public until the Court add resses the

O ctober 14, 2020 motion for review.