1 

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: March 9, 2022 

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

A.F.P., * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * No. 21-1990V

v. * 

* Special Master Dorsey

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Motion for Redaction.

*

Respondent. *

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

A.F.P., pro se, for petitioner. 

Tyler King, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR REDACTION1

On February 22, 2022, petitioner filed a motion to redact the undersigned’s February 7, 

2022 Order Concluding Proceedings and the undersigned’s February 8, 2022 Decision Awarding 

Costs. Petitioner’s Motion to Redact Information on Decisions (“Pet. Mot.”), filed Feb. 22, 2022 

(ECF No. 20). For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. 

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 8, 2021, A.F.P. (“petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury

Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleged that she suffered shoulder pain and polymyalgia 

1 The undersigned intends to post this Order on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ 

website. This means the Order will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. In 

accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners have 14 days to identify and move to redact 

medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion 

of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this 

definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. Because this 

unpublished order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned is 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the 

E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion

of Electronic Government Services).

2

 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National 

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All citations in this Order are

to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. 

REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION

MAR 25 2022

OSM

U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
2

rheumatica as a result of a pneumococcal conjugate (“Prevnar 13”) vaccination on October 8, 

2018. Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1). 

On February 7, 2022, the undersigned issued an Order Concluding Proceedings. Order

Concluding Proceedings dated Feb. 7, 2022 (ECF No. 17). On February 8, 2022, the 

undersigned issued a decision awarding costs, awarding petitioner $402.00 in costs. Decision 

Awarding Costs dated Feb. 8, 2022 (ECF No. 18).

On February 22, 2022, petitioner filed a motion to redact her name to initials in the Order 

Concluding Proceedings and Decision Awarding Costs. Pet. Mot. at 1. In support of this 

request, petitioner states her “[d]isclosing [p]etitioner’s name in association with her medical 

conditions constitute an unwarranted invasion of [p]etitioner’s privacy. In additional, removal of 

[p]etitioner’s name and using [p]etitioner’s initial takes nothing away from the Court’s 

requirement to post a reasoned explanation of these Decisions on the United State[s] Court of 

Federal Claim[s’] website.” Id. Respondent did not file a response.

This matter is now ripe for adjudication. 

II. DISCUSSION

A motion for redaction is governed by section 12(d)(4)(B) of the Vaccine Act. See §

12(d)(4)(B). That section provides that information concerning “medical files and similar files” 

may be redacted if its disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” 

Id. What constitutes a “clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy” requires balancing petitioner’s

“right of privacy against the public purpose of the Vaccine Act.” W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & 

Hum. Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440, 460 (2011), aff’d, 704 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). While a 

petitioner has an interest in keeping sensitive medical or other embarrassing information private, 

the public has an interest in disclosure, so as to increase public awareness of vaccines and the 

medical conditions they may or may not cause. Id. at 461. In other words, sensitive information 

is often the subject of the litigation, and “in cases where sensitive information is the subject of 

the dispute, that information is routinely disclosed in decisions, to enable the reader to follow 

and understand the decision maker’s rationale.” Castagna v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 

99-411V, 2011 WL 4348135, at *13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 25, 2011). 

Although the Vaccine Rules make mandatory the redaction of a minor’s name, adult 

petitioner’s names, which are not similarly protected automatically, may also be redacted if the 

petitioner establishes proper grounds for redaction. See R.V. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 

No. 08-504V, 2016 WL 3776888, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 10, 2016) (“[A] petitioner 

needs to make some showing to justify the relief of redaction; redaction is not available simply at 

a petitioner’s beck and call.”). The undersigned will permit redaction in cases, such as this, 

where a specialized showing is made.

The facts and circumstances of this case warrant redaction of petitioner’s name to initials. 

Petitioner made an adequate showing for redaction. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for 

redaction of her name in the decision to initials is GRANTED. 
3

Thus, the public versions of the order concluding proceedings and decision award 

damages shall be redacted to include only petitioner’s initials, A.F.P. Moreover, the undersigned 

further directs the clerk to amend the case caption3 to the following:

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

A.F.P., *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

 Special Master

3 If either party objects to the undersigned’s redaction of the case caption, a motion requesting 

the undersigned to reconsider redaction of the case caption may be filed.