1 

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

KOREY FLOYD, * 

 * No. 13-556V

 Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

 * 

v. * 

 * Filed: March 2, 2017 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Redaction, adult petitioner. 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

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

PUBLISHED ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REDACTION1

On August 8, 2013, Korey Floyd filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, codified at 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa−10 through 34 (2012). Mr. Floyd alleged a neurological demyelinating 

injury as a result of a trivalent influenza vaccine he received on October 18, 2012. 

On May 2, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision based on the parties’ stipulation 

awarding compensation to petitioner. On May 13, 2016, Mr. Floyd filed a motion 

to redact, requesting his name be redacted throughout the published decision. For 

the reasons explained below, this motion is DENIED.

* * * 

Mr. Floyd cites “privacy reasons” as the primary reason for his request to 

redact the decision awarding compensation. He states that, in addition to the 

Vaccine Act warranting redaction, the Court of Federal Claims favors redaction for 

privacy reasons when the privacy of the individual outweighs that of the 

 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this order on its website. Pursuant 

to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical 

information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions 

ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2 

government’s interest in public disclosure. Pet’r’s Mot. to Redact, filed May 13, 

2016, at 2-3 (citing W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Services, 100 Fed. Cl. 440 

(2011)). 

The Secretary filed a response to the motion to redact. Resp’t’s Resp. to 

Mot. to Redact, filed May 31, 2016. The Secretary asserted that the Vaccine Act 

requires decisions of specials masters be disclosed and petitioners are aware of this 

requirement when they file a petition. Id. at 3 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 300aa12(d)(4)(B)). The Secretary argues that without some special showing, redaction 

would be inappropriate. Id. at 3-4. 

Mr. Floyd’s motion included a partial quote of the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Quoting the Vaccine Act, Mr. Floyd stated that the Vaccine 

Act prohibits an invasion of privacy: “if the person who submitted such 

information objects to the inclusion of such information in the decision . . . the 

decision shall be disclosed without such information.” Pet’r’s Mot. to Redact, at 1. 

The motion’s partial quotation of the Vaccine Act is misleading due to the 

omission of preceding text which is crucial to interpreting the statute. See 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Mr. Floyd’s reply to the Secretary’s response 

corrected this omission. Pet’r’s Reply, filed June 17, 2016, at 2. 

Quoted as a whole, § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), reads: “A decision of a special 

master or the court in a proceeding shall be disclosed, except that if the decision is 

to include information (i) which is trade secret or commercial or financial 

information which is privileged and confidential, or (ii) which are medical files and 

similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of privacy, and if the person who submitted such information objects to 

the inclusion of such information in the decision, the decision shall be disclosed 

without such information.” Id. 

When the statute is read in its entirety, the conjunction “and” coordinates the 

incomplete portion initially cited by Mr. Floyd with the important previous 

requirements that the information be either a trade secret, privileged and 

confidential financial information, or medical files or something similar that would 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Mr. Floyd’s motion does not 

address how his name is any of these things identified as appropriate for redaction 

under the Vaccine Act. 

Mr. Floyd also cites W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Services, 100 Fed. 

Cl. 440 (2011) extensively for support. The applicability of W.C. to the 
3 

circumstances of this case was persuasively addressed in House v. Sec’y of Health 

& Human Services, No. 99-406V, 2012 WL 402040 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 11, 

2012). Similar to the reasoning in House, Mr. Floyd has not pointed “to his 

particular factual circumstances to show that the full disclosure of his vaccine 

decision would constitute an unjustified invasion of his privacy.” Mr. Floyd makes 

no showing, by reference to his own particular circumstances, how the disclosure 

of the decision on his claim that he suffered a particular injury as a result of 

receiving certain vaccines would “effect a ‘clearly unwarranted intrusion’ on his 

privacy.” Id. at *6 n.15. 

The undersigned has discussed, in detail, the requirements for a petitioner to 

satisfy the requirements to meet a specialized showing in K.O. v. Sec’y of Health 

& Human Services, No. 13-472V, 2016 WL 7634492 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov.

30, 2016). Here, Mr. Floyd has not made this argument nor has he submitted any 

additional evidence to support some special showing as to why his name should be 

redacted.

For these reasons, Mr. Floyd’s motion is DENIED. Pursuant to Vaccine 

Rule 18(b), the entire decision issued on May 2, 2016 will be made available to the 

public. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 S/ Christian J. Moran

 Christian J. Moran

 Special Master