VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_03-vv-02807
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_03-vv-02807
Petitioner: J.A.C.
Filed: 2003-12-11
Decided: 2025-04-29
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 
Condition: 
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On December 11, 2003, J.A.C.'s mother filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 on his behalf. On January 9, 2012, Chief Special Master Patricia E. Campbell-Smith dismissed the case for insufficient proof. The decision included a footnote stating that it would be posted on the Court of Federal Claims website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, and that parties had 14 days to move for redaction of sensitive information. Neither party filed such a motion, and the decision was posted publicly. 

In 2019, J.A.C., by then an adult, and his mother sought to remove the decision from the internet. Then-Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey granted their motion in part on June 17, 2019, noting that while the request was untimely, she would redact J.A.C.'s name from the case caption on the court's electronic filing system to reduce the chance of an internet search leading directly to the unredacted decision. She also acknowledged that J.A.C.'s mother had presented a compelling reason for redaction, fearing disruption to J.A.C.'s socialization and emotional health. However, CSM Dorsey stated that redacting the original decision was no longer a viable form of relief because it was already available on the internet and other legal research sites, beyond the court's control. 

J.A.C. subsequently requested that CSM Dorsey not publish her June 17, 2019 order online or, alternatively, that his mother be referred to only by her initials, as he believed his identity could be triangulated from his mother's name. On August 5, 2019, CSM Dorsey granted this request in part, redacting his mother's name to initials in the public version of her order, as they shared the same last name. 

In January 2020, J.A.C. filed a new complaint, asserting that the PDF file of the 2012 decision still contained his full last name in the filename and requested it be disabled or changed. On April 30, 2020, Special Master Dorsey denied this complaint, reiterating that the 2012 decision was in the public domain and no longer within the court's control. She also stated that the court was obligated by the Vaccine Act and the E-Government Act to make decisions publicly available and could not remove the decision from its website. 

On August 19, 2024, J.A.C. moved to seal all records in his case, arguing that public access to them would harm his future professional prospects. On December 4, 2024, Chief Special Master Brian Corcoran denied this motion. J.A.C. then moved this Court for review of CSM Corcoran's decision. 

On April 29, 2025, Judge Thompson M. Dietz issued an opinion and order denying J.A.C.'s motion for review and sustaining CSM Corcoran's decision. The court held that sealing the 2012 dismissal decision was not permissible under the Vaccine Act and the E-Government Act, which require public access to court opinions. The court also noted that motions for redaction must be filed within 14 days of a decision, and J.A.C.'s requests were untimely. Once a decision is on the public internet, it is no longer within the court's control. Regarding other case records, the court affirmed that they are already restricted to court personnel and parties under Vaccine Act section 12(d)(4)(A) and thus are not public, meaning there is nothing further to seal. The court also noted that J.A.C.'s concurrent letter to the Chief Judge alleging judicial misconduct was being handled separately.

Theory of causation field:
The underlying vaccine claim was dismissed in 2012 for insufficient proof. The subsequent proceedings and the April 29, 2025 decision by Judge Thompson M. Dietz concern J.A.C.'s motions to seal and redact case records, not the merits of the original vaccine injury claim. The court denied J.A.C.'s motion to seal all records, upholding the Chief Special Master's denial. The court reasoned that the Vaccine Act and the E-Government Act mandate public disclosure of court decisions, and that J.A.C.'s requests for sealing and redaction were untimely and, in some instances, moot because the decision was already in the public domain and beyond the court's control. Other case records were found to be already restricted to court personnel and parties, thus not subject to further sealing. No specific vaccine, vaccination date, or alleged injury was detailed in this decision, as the focus was on procedural matters related to record access and privacy.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_03-vv-02807-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-06-03
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/30/2020) regarding 46 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (sw) Service on parties made; petitioner served via U.S. mail. (dls)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 47 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 6
REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 3 2020
OSM
CORRECTED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: April 30, 2020
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
J.A.C., *
*
Petitioner, * No. 03-2807V
v. *
* Special Master Dorsey
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Order Denying Petitioner’s “Complaint;”
* Redaction.
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S “COMPLAINT”1
On January 13, 2020, J.A.C. (“petitioner”) filed a document entitled “Complaint” in
regard to the Court’s August 5, 2019 Order on Motion for Redaction, seeking to enforce the
Order. Complaint, filed Jan. 13, 2020 (ECF No. 44). For the reasons discussed more thoroughly
below, the undersigned DENIES relief to petitioner.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 11, 2003, J.M.C. filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act” or “the Program”),2 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
10 et seq. (2012) on behalf of her minor son, J.A.C., alleging that as a result of certain childhood
vaccines administered to her son, he developed an autism spectrum disorder. See generally
1 Because this 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.A. § 3051 note (2012) (Federal Management and
Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available to
anyone with access to the Internet. In accordance with 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. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the
identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from
public access.
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-10 to -34 (2012). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the
Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 47 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 6
Short-Form Autism Petition. On January 9, 2012, the special master to whom the case was
assigned determined that J.M.C. had not demonstrated entitlement to compensation, and
dismissed the petition. Decision at 2 (ECF No. 29). The Decision included the following
footnote:
Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action
in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal
Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. Pub. L. No.
107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3051
note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to
identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the
criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule
requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits with the requirements of
that provision, I will delete such material from public access.
Id. at 1 n.1 (emphasis added). No motion for redaction was filed, and the Decision was
subsequently posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website.
On April 26, 2019, J.M.C. submitted an untimely request to redact the decision. Motion
(“Mot.”) for Consideration, filed Apr. 26, 2019 (ECF No. 35). The undersigned instead granted
alternative relief, amending the caption of the case to contain only J.A.C.’s initials. Order dated
June 17, 2019, at 4 (ECF No. 39). This relief resulted in the use of the redacted caption in the
hyperlink on Court’s website, which leads to the original Decision, and in the Court’s CM/ECF
system. Id. Because petitioner is now a competent adult, the undersigned redacted the caption to
display his initials and his alone. Id.
On June 26, 2019, petitioner filed a motion in response to the undersigned’s June 17,
2019 Order. See Mot. for Reconsideration, filed June 26, 2019 (ECF No. 40). Petitioner
requested that the June 17, 2019 Order not be publicly posted online, since his mother’s name
was mentioned in the text. Id. at 1. In the alternative, he requested that his mother’s name be
redacted to display only her initials. Id. He explained that he wanted to “protect [his]
stepfather’s last name from internet searches as he was not involved in the original petition.” Id.
He also expressed concern that “those who know who my mother is could figure out that this
case is about me still subjecting me to public embarrassment, interfering with my social life, and
disclosure of my Private Health Information.” Id. Respondent did not submit a response.
On August 5, 2019, the undersigned granted the alternative relief sought, redacting the
June 17, 2019 Order to include only the initials of petitioner’s mother. Order dated Aug. 5,
2019, at 2-3 (ECF No. 41). The undersigned concluded that redaction of petitioner’s mother’s
name was appropriate because “[p]etitioner and his mother share the same last name, increasing
the likelihood that a member of the public could make a connection between the two.” Id.
In November 2019, the undersigned’s law clerk received numerous calls from petitioner
and his mother regarding the Court’s August 5, 2019 Order. See Informal Communication
2

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 47 Filed 06/03/20 Page 3 of 6
Remark dated Nov. 20, 2019; Informal Communication Remark dated Nov. 27, 2019. All calls
and voicemails were referred to the Clerk’s office, as this case is closed.
On January 13, 2020, petitioner filed a “Complaint,” stating that the August 5, 2019
Order is being violated. Complaint, filed Jan. 13, 2020, at 2 (ECF No. 44). Specifically,
petitioner wrote that “[t]he PDF file has not reflected JAC in the filename but rather the full last
name of the [petitioner].” Id. Petitioner further “[r]equest[s] to have [the] link disabled or [his]
last name removed and changed to reflect JAC in the filename.” Id. In support, petitioner
attached a screenshot of a yahoo search of his full name to illustrate this issue. Id. at 4. The
screenshot shows that the website URL, which leads to the original 2012 Decision, contains his
full last name instead of his initials, J.A.C. Id. Petitioner requests to have the link disabled or
the last name removed and changed to reflect J.A.C. in the filename. Id.
Respondent did not file a response to petitioner’s “Complaint.” This matter is now ripe
for adjudication.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
The disclosure of information submitted during a vaccine proceeding is governed by §
12(d)(4) of the Vaccine Act, which is incorporated into Vaccine Rule 18. Under § 12(d)(4)(A),
information submitted in a vaccine proceeding may not be disclosed without the written consent
of the party who submitted the information. Thus, Congress protected any information
submitted by a party from public view by effectively sealing pre-decisional Vaccine Act
proceedings. In 1989, however, Congress added § 12(d)(4)(B), which requires the disclosure of
vaccine decisions while allowing the parties to seek redaction of “trade secret or commercial or
financial information which is privileged and confidential,” or “medical files and similar files the
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Under the
Vaccine Rules, the parties are given fourteen days “to object to the public disclosure of any
information furnished by that party.” Vaccine Rule 18(b).
Thirteen years after the addition of § 12(d)(4)(B), Congress enacted the E-Government
Act of 2005 in an effort to improve public access to government information and services. The
Act, which applies to all federal courts, requires them to establish and maintain websites where
the public can view information including “all written opinions issued by the court,” both
published and unpublished. Congress also instructed the Supreme Court to “prescribe rules” to
address potential privacy and security concerns associated with this increased public access. E-
Government Act § 205(c)(3). In response, the federal courts adopted Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“FRCP”) 5.2, which the U.S. Court of Federal Claims subsequently incorporated in
relevant part into its Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). RCFC 5.2
allows a party to use an abbreviated version of certain personal information when filing
documents with the court. Under this rule, a party may redact a minor’s name to initials in any
filed document. RCFC 5.2(a)(3). In keeping with the desire to protect the identity of minor and
because all vaccine rulings and decisions must be made available to the public, Vaccine Rule 16
was also amended in 2011 to allow the use of the minor’s initials in petitions filed in vaccine
proceedings. See Vaccine Rule 16(b).
3

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 47 Filed 06/03/20 Page 4 of 6
When evaluating redaction requests, special masters generally follow one or two
approaches, articulated in W.C. and Langland. See W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
100 Fed. Cl. 400 (2011); Langland v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 07-36V, 2011 WL
802695 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 3, 2011), aff’d in relevant part, 109 Fed. Cl. 421, 424 n.1
(2013). Applying Langland, special masters have held that a petitioner seeking redaction of a
ruling or decision must establish a “compelling reason tailored to meet the individual interest it
serves”—in other words, more than a general preference for privacy. Andrews v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 08-0396V, 2014 WL 3294656, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 4,
2014) (citing Langland, 2011 WL 802695, at *7-8). Based on the language of the Vaccine Act
itself, “a petitioner requesting redaction of a decision must make an affirmative, factual showing
that redaction is proper” to prevail. Castagna v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-411V,
2011 WL 4348135, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 25, 2011).
W.C., in contrast, asserts that a petitioner’s privacy interests should be balanced against
“the public purpose of the Vaccine Act” in the same manner as such interests are balanced under
FOIA (given the similarities of its privacy provisions). 100 Fed. Cl. at 460-61. From this
perspective, “unwarranted” or “significant” invasions of privacy occasioned by disclosure of
sensitive information weigh in favor of redaction. Id. W.C.’s redaction standard is thus
somewhat more lenient, as it asserts that the “right to access public records in civil cases” need
not be as carefully guarded in Vaccine Program cases, which are statutorily intended to be less
adversarial in nature. Id. at 460. As W.C. reasons, because Vaccine Program decisions are
intended to disseminate information about possibly adverse vaccine reactions, disclosure of a
petitioner’s name or information about her illness is not always necessary to effectuate that
purpose. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
As the undersigned noted in her June 17, 2019 Order, J.M.C.’s redaction request of the
January 9, 2012 Decision was very untimely. Order dated June 17, 2019, at 4 (ECF No. 39).
Because the Decision dismissing this case was issued over seven years prior to the motion for
redaction, “redaction [was] no longer a viable form of relief.” Id. Over those seven years, an
unknown number of legal research and other websites picked up the PDF decision from the
Court’s website and posted it on their respective websites. Thus, even if the original Decision
posted on the Court’s website was redacted, the original unredacted Decision would remain
available on these other websites. Id. As other special masters have noted, “once a decision has
been posted on the court’s website . . ., the information is in the public domain and no longer
within the control of the court.” Steinweg v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-1150V,
2011 WL 7461893, at *2 n.5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 4, 2011).
As the motion for redaction was untimely made in this case and redaction no longer
practically feasible since the Decision was in the public domain, the undersigned granted the
alternative relief of amending the caption of the case in the Court’s CM/ECF system to contain
only J.A.C.’s initials. Order dated June 17, 2019, at 4 (ECF No. 39). This approach has been
taken in a similar situation by another special master. See N.W. v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 07-93V, 2018 WL 5851061, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 13, 2018).
4

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 47 Filed 06/03/20 Page 5 of 6

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 47 Filed 06/03/20 Page 6 of 6
In his “Complaint,” petitioner points specifically to search engine results for his full name
which contain links to the January 9, 2012 Decision from the United States Court of Federal
Claims’ website. The petitioner’s full last name is included in at least one website URL.
Unfortunately, as the undersigned explained, once a PDF of a decision is published on the
Court’s website, “the information is in the public domain and no longer within the control of the
court.” Steinweg, 2011 WL 7461893, at *2 n.5.
The undersigned extends her sympathies to the petitioner; however, she cannot offer
petitioner the relief he requests. Even if the undersigned were to change the PDF file name of
the January 9, 2012 Decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website or alter the
associated website URL, doing so will not achieve the results petitioner ultimately desires—to
have his name removed from the January 9, 2012 Decision on the Court’s website and
throughout the internet in association with that Decision. Given the number of years the January
9, 2012 Decision has been available on the Court’s website, it is impossible to remove it from the
internet as a whole, or from search engine results. Further, the undersigned and the Court are
obligated pursuant to the Vaccine Act and the E-Government Act to make publicly available
decisions and other reasoned orders, and therefore the undersigned cannot remove the January 9,
2012 Decision from the Court’s website by disabling its link. Unfortunately, the undersigned
cannot grant the relief petitioner requests or that a timely redaction motion would have provided.
IV. CONCLUSION
The undersigned extends her sympathies to the petitioner. However, the relief petitioner
desires is not feasible due to his untimely request, and thus, there is nothing more she can do.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned determines that petitioner is not entitled to any
further relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_03-vv-02807-2
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-29
Pages: 8
Docket text: JUDGE VACCINE REPORTED OPINION (PUBLIC VERSION) of 64 Judge Vaccine Order/Opinion. Signed by Judge Thompson M. Dietz. (sbp) Service on parties made. Petitioner served via First Class mail on 5/1/2025. (fm).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 69 Filed 04/29/25 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 03-2807
(Filed Under Seal: April 2, 2025)
(Reissued: April 29, 2025)1
**************************************
J.A.C., *
*
Petitioner, *
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN *
SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
**************************************
J.A.C., Venice, FL, proceeding pro se.
Eleanor A. Hanson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, counsel for
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
DIETZ, Judge.
Petitioner J.A.C. seeks review of Chief Special Master (“CSM”) Brian Corcoran’s
decision denying his motion to seal documents related to his petition for compensation under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (“Vaccine Act”).
Because J.A.C. has not demonstrated that CSM Corcoran’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, the Court DENIES his motion and
SUSTAINS the CSM’s decision.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 11, 2003, J.A.C.’s mother filed an action on his behalf under the Vaccine
Act. Pet. [ECF 1]. On January 11, 2012, the Clerk of Court entered judgment in the case pursuant
to then-CSM Patricia E. Campbell-Smith’s January 9, 2012, decision dismissing the case for
1
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, the Court issued this
Opinion and Order under seal on April 2, 2025, and provided the parties fourteen days to propose redactions. See
[ECF 64]. On April 10, 2025, J.A.C. moved to seal the entire decision. [ECF 65]. The government responded on
April 18, 2025, arguing that the motion should be denied “[f]or the reasons set forth in the Opinion, and the
disclosure and publication requirements contained in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4) and the E-Government Act.” [ECF
66] at 1. The Court agreed and denied J.A.C.’s motion to seal the entire decision. [ECF 68]. Accordingly, the Court
reissues this Opinion and Order without redactions.

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 69 Filed 04/29/25 Page 2 of 8
insufficient proof. Decision [ECF 29]; J. [ECF 31]. In her decision, CSM Campbell-Smith
included the following language in a footnote:
Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation
for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United
States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002, . . . . In accordance with Vaccine Rule
18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or
other information, that satisfies the criteria in [the Vaccine Act].
Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction
must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree
that the identified material fits within the requirements of that
provision, I will delete such material from public access.
[ECF 29] at 1 n.1.2 Neither party filed a motion to redact medical or other information from the
decision, so the decision was posted to the Court’s website.
On April 26, 2019, J.A.C.’s mother moved to “remove this pdf file [associated with the
Court’s January 9, 2012, decision] and link from the internet.” Apr. 26, 2019, Letter [ECF 35] at
2. On June 17, 2019, then-CSM Nora Beth Dorsey granted in part and denied in part the motion.
Order [ECF 39]. CSM Dorsey considered whether J.A.C.’s mother demonstrated sufficient
grounds for a redaction.3 She noted that if J.A.C.’s mother had filed the petition today, “J.A.C.’s
name would have been redacted as a matter of course,” id. at 4, under Vaccine Rule 16(b), which
was “amended in 2011 to allow the use of the minor’s initials in petitions filed in vaccine
proceedings,” id. at 3. She further noted that J.A.C.’s mother had “offered a compelling reason
for redaction . . . not simply a general preference for privacy, but the fully-realized fear that the
exposure of her son’s medical information would disrupt his socialization and emotional health
as he grew older.” 4 Id. at 4. Nevertheless, CSM Dorsey remarked that it had been seven years
since CSM Campbell-Smith issued her decision and that the requested “redaction [was] no
longer a viable form of relief.” Id. She explained:
2 All page numbers in the petition for compensation and the parties’ briefings refer to the page numbers generated by
the CM/ECF system.
3 CSM Dorsey considered the appropriateness of a redaction under two different standards. In W.C. v. Secretary of
Health and Human Services, 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (2011), the court construed the Vaccine Act’s privacy provisions in
concert with those in the Freedom of Information Act and concluded that it was appropriate to balance a petitioner’s
right of privacy “against the public purpose of the Vaccine Act,” id. at 460, which is to “increase public awareness
of vaccines and the medical conditions they may cause,” id. at 461. In Langland v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, No. 7-36V, 2011 WL 802695 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 3, 2011), the court concluded that because the common law
informs the Vaccine Act and because under the common law, “public access to decisions is presumed, and the party
seeking to seal a document faces a burden to show particularized harm outweighing the public interest in disclosure,
. . . [the Vaccine Act] militates against routine redaction of all sensitive medical information from special masters’
decisions,” id. at *8.
4 Although not specified in her order, it appears that CSM Dorsey applied the Langland standard to J.A.C.’s
mother’s request for a redaction. [ECF 39] at 3 (“Applying Langland, special masters have held that a petition
seeking redaction of a ruling or decision must establish a compelling reason, tailored to meet the individual interest
it serves—in other words, more than a general preference for privacy.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
2

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 69 Filed 04/29/25 Page 3 of 8
Even if the Decision found on the Court’s website were replaced
with a version using only initials for [J.A.C.’s mother] and [J.A.C.],
the original version is already available on the internet and can be
found on other legal research sites. Thus, the undersigned is not
empowered to grant the relief that a timely motion would have
provided.
Id. (emphasis added). Despite recognizing the apparent futility of J.A.C.’s request, CSM Dorsey
ordered that his name be redacted “in the case caption and the caption on CM/ECF online.” Id. In
her view, although the remedy would not “guarantee that the decision [would] not be seen or
accessed by anyone, [it might] reduce the possiblity that an internet search would lead directly to
the unredacted Decision.” Id.
Thereafter, on June 26, 2019, J.A.C.—now an adult proceeding pro se—requested that
CSM Dorsey not publish her June 17, 2019, order on the internet. Mot. for Consideration [ECF
40] at 1. Alternatively, he requested that—in the order—she only refer to his mother by her
initials since he believed it possible for someone to determine his identity based on his mother’s
name. Id. He also explained that he had taken his stepfather’s name and wanted to protect him
and his family from any public embarassment that might result from an internet search of his
name. Id. On August 5, 2019, CSM Dorsey granted J.A.C.’s motion in part, finding that because
“[he] and his mother share the same last name, . . . [t]he facts and circumstances of th[e] case
warrant redaction of the name of [his] mother . . . to include only the initials” in the public
version of the order. Order [ECF 41] at 3. CSM Dorsey issued the public, redacted version of her
August 5, 2019, order on September 9, 2019. Order [ECF 42].
On January 13, 2020, J.A.C. filed a new complaint in the case. Compl. [ECF 44].
Therein, J.A.C. complained that, despite CSM Dorsey’s August 2019 order, “[t]he PDF file [did]
not reflect[] JAC in the filename but rather [his] full last name . . . .” Id. at 2. He requested that
the “link [be] disabled or [that his] last name [be] removed and changed to reflect JAC in the
filename.” Id. (alterations added). Attached to his complaint, J.A.C. included a screenshot of a
Yahoo search of his full name. Id. at 4. The search results appear to show links to two decisions
in his case that were posted on the Court’s website. Id. On April 30, 2020, Special Master
Dorsey denied the complaint,5 explaining that because a PDF of the January 9, 2012, decision
was previously posted to the court’s website, it was in the public domain and therefore no longer
within the court’s control. Order [ECF 46] at 6 (stating that, even if the decision’s PDF file name
or the associated website URL were altered, J.A.C.’s name would not be removed from the
January 9, 2012, decision on court’s website or the internet). She added: “Further, the
undersigned and the Court are obligated pursuant to the Vaccine Act and the E-Government Act
to make publicly available decisions and other reasoned orders, and therefore the undersigned
cannot remove the January 9, 2012 Decision from the Court’s website by disabling its link.” Id.
Special Master Dorsey issued the public, redacted version of her April 30, 2020, decision on
June 3, 2020. Order [ECF 47].
5 Special Master Dorsey was no longer the Chief Special Master at this time.
3

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 69 Filed 04/29/25 Page 4 of 8
On August 19, 2024, J.A.C. moved to seal all the records in his case in order to protect
not only his privacy but also his “future professional prospects.” Am. Pet. [ECF 50] at 1.6 On
December 4, 2024, CSM Corcoran denied the motion. Order [ECF 55].7 J.A.C. now moves this
Court to reconsider CSM Corcoran’s denial of his motion to seal his records and to review the
process whereby cases are reassigned from one judge to another. Appeal [ECF 56]. The
government responded, Resp. [ECF 60], and J.A.C. replied, Reply [ECF 62].8 The Court
determined that oral argument was not necessary in this case.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has jurisdiction under the Vaccine Act to review a special master’s decision.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2). In conducting its review, the Court may:
(A) uphold the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the
special master and sustain the special master’s decision,
(B) set aside any findings of fact or conclusion of law of the
special master found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law and issue
its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, or
(C) remand the petition to the special master for further action in
accordance with the court’s direction.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2)(A)-(C).
The Court reviews a special master’s findings of fact under the “arbitrary and capricious”
standard, legal questions under the “not in accordance with law” standard, and discretionary
rulings under the “abuse of discretion” standard. Turner v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 268
F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–12(e)(2)(B); Munn v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 970 F.2d 863, 870, 870 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). With respect to the
arbitrary and capricious standard, “no uniform definition . . . has emerged,” but it is “a highly
deferential standard of review” such that “[i]f the special master has considered the relevant
evidence of record, drawn plausible inferences and articulated a rational basis for the decision,
reversible error will be extremely difficult to demonstrate.” Hines v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
6 J.A.C. previous filed two slightly different versions of this motion. Pet. to Seal [ECF 48]; Am. Pet. to Seal [ECF
49].
7 The case was reassigned to CSM Corcoran on November 14, 2024, under Vaccine Rule 3(d). Order [ECF 52]. The
rule provides that the Chief Special Master may reassign cases “[w]hen necessary for the efficient administration of
justice . . . .” RCFC, App. B, Vaccine Rule 3(d). Although J.A.C. suggests that “[t]he abrupt reassignment of [his]
case after [his] complaint about Special Master Dorsey raises questions about fairness and judicial neutrality,”
Appeal [ECF 56] at 4, there is no evidence that CSM Corcoran reassigned the case to himself for any reason other
than that stated in the rule.
8 Although the Vaccine Rules do not contemplate the filing of a reply by the petitioner, the Court sua sponte grants
J.A.C. permission to do so.
4

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 69 Filed 04/29/25 Page 5 of 8
Servs., 940 F.2d 1518, 1527-28 (Fed. Cir. 1991); accord Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc.
v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (stating that a decision is arbitrary and
capricious if it is “so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view”). The “not
in accordance with law” standard, on the other hand, is applied without deference to legal
determinations. Deribeaux v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 717 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
2013); see Munn, 970 F.2d at 870 (stating that “[i]ssues of law—constitutional imperatives,
statutory construction, procedural requirements—come to [the court] for decision with little if
any deference owed to or expected by the forums below”). Lastly, the abuse of discretion
standard applies to the special master’s evidentiary rulings, such as determinations regarding the
qualification of experts and the admissibility of their testimony. Piscopo v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 66 Fed. Cl. 49, 53 (2005) (citing Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152
(1999)). “The [abuse of discretion standard] will rarely come into play except where the special
master excludes evidence.” Munn, 970 F.2d at 870 n.10; accord Caves v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 119, 131 (2011), aff’d, 463 F. App’x 932 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
III. ANALYSIS
In his motion for review, J.A.C. requests the Court “[o]rder the sealing of all [the] records
in this case that contain sensitive information, including but not limited to medical records,
affidavits, court opinions, and any other documents that identify or could identify petitioner.”
[ECF 50] at 4 (emphasis omitted). He further requests that the Court “[d]irect that the sealed
records be made inaccessible to the public, including through online search engines and other
electronic means.” Id. (emphasis omitted). J.A.C. asserts that “[t]he basis of [his] request is to
protect [his] privacy and future professional prospects [because he] is now an adult and faces
significant harm to his reputation and career if these records remain publicly accessible.” Id. at 1.
In response, the government asserts that “[t]he Chief Special Master did not abuse his discretion
or err as a matter of law when he denied petitioner’s [m]otion [to seal],” [ECF 60] at 8, and that
“no procedural or legal error has occurred in this case that would justify reversal or a remand, id.
at 10. The government explains that “[J.A.C.]’s medical records and affidavits are already
effectively sealed pursuant to [Vaccine Act] section 12(d)(4)(B) and Vaccine Rule 27.” Id. at 8-
9. Additionally, with respect to the 2012 decision, the government states that “[t]he prior Special
Master did what she could to alleviate petitioner’s concerns by amending the caption to only
display his initials and thus make the decision more difficult to locate, but she acknowledged the
reality of the situation: she did not have the power to remove the Decision from the vast
internet.” Id. at 10.
The Court finds that J.A.C. has not demonstrated that the CSM Corcoran’s decision was
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The
Vaccine Act provides:
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), information
submitted to a special master or the court in a proceeding on
a petition may not be disclosed to a person who is not a party
to the proceeding without the express written consent of the
person who submitted the information.
5

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 69 Filed 04/29/25 Page 6 of 8
(B) 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.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(A)-(B). Consistent with these requirements, this Court’s Vaccine
Rules provide that “[e]xcept as provided in Vaccine Rule 18, all filings submitted in a Vaccine
Act case are restricted pursuant to the requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(A) and
therefore are accessible only to court personnel and the parties to the case.” RCFC, Suppl. to
App. B ¶ 27 (emphasis added). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states, in relevant part, that all vaccine
decisions will be held for 14 days so that the parties may file their objections to the public
disclosure of information “that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” RCFC, App. B, Vaccine Rule
18(b)(2). The E-Government Act of 2002 requires, among other things, that the Court of Federal
Claims “establish[] and maintain[] . . . a website that contains . . . [a]ccess to the substance of all
written opinions issued by the court.” E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, §
205(a), 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (2002). Thus, in a Vaccine Act case, while the parties’ filings are
not made publicly available, the Court’s decisions are made publicly available. Further, these
decisions may only be made publicly available in redacted form—redacting certain types of
information—if the Court receives a timely request from one of the parties.
Under this framework, CSM Corcoran rationally denied J.A.C.’s motion to seal the
records in this case. First, with respect to the 2012 dismissal decision and subsequent decisions
in this case, CSC Corcoran correctly concluded that “due to the publication requirements set
forth in the E-Government Act and the untimely request, sealing records is no longer an option.”
[ECF 55] at 6. Both the Vaccine Act and the E-Government Act require that the Court provide
public access to its written opinions. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(A)-(B) (stating that“[a] decision
of a special master or the court in a proceeding shall be disclosed”); E-Government Act § 205(a)
(requiring a website that provides “[a]ccess to the substance of all written opinions”). Therefore,
entirely sealing the 2012 dismissal decision, or any of the subsequent decisions, is not
permissible.9 Furthermore, even if the Court were to treat J.A.C.’s motion as one seeking
9 There are multiple decisions in this case: the dismissal decision issued on January 9, 2012 [ECF 29, 43]; the Order
issued on June 17, 2019 granting in-part J.A.C.’s motion to redact the dismissal decision [ECF 39]; the Order issued
on August 5, 2019, granting in-part J.A.C.’s motion to redact the June 17, 2019, Order [ECF 41]; and the Order
issued on April 30, 2020, denying J.A.C.’s motion to enforce the August 5, 2019, Order [ECF 46]. However, the
6

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 69 Filed 04/29/25 Page 7 of 8
redaction of certain information from the decisions to protect J.A.C.’s privacy, such relief would
be unavailable. To avoid an unwarranted invasion of privacy, the Vaccine Act permits a special
master to exclude certain information from disclosure as part of a decision, but it requires that
the petitioner first object to the inclusion of such information in the decision. See 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-12(d)(4)(B). In this regard, Vaccine Rule 18(c) requires that “[a] party objecting to the
public disclosure of information contained in a decision . . . file a motion to redact within 14
days after service of the decision,” and states that a motion to redact “will be denied” if it is
untimely filed. RCFC, App. B, Vaccine Rule 18(c). Here, with respect to the 2012 dismissal
decision, J.A.C. did not make a timely objection; and, as a result, the Court made an unredacted
version of the decision publicly available through its website pursuant to the E-Government Act.
Because the decision was made publicly available on the internet, it is no longer within the
control of the Court. See Steinweg v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 3-1150V, 2011 WL
7461893, at *2 n.5 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 4, 2011) (explaining “that once a decision has been posted on
the court’s website and published electronically in a reporter, the information is in the public
domain and no longer within the control of the court”); Kanefield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 8-122V, 2016 WL 4729531, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 18, 2016) (stating that “[o]nce a
decision has been made public, it is in the public domain and it is too late to effect redaction”).
Consequently, redaction of specific information from the decision to avoid a privacy invasion is
no longer feasible.10
Next, regarding the other case records, CSM Corcoran correctly explained that, under
section 12(d)(4)(A) of the Vaccine Act, “[r]ecords submitted in a Vaccine Act case are already
effectively filed under seal, even if not literally so . . . [because] all filings submitted by the
parties in a Vaccine Act case . . . are accessible only to court personnel and the parties to the
case.” [ECF 55] at 6 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(A); RCFC, Suppl. to App. B ¶ 27). Specifically, the Vaccine Act prohibits disclosure of
“information submitted to a special master or the court in a proceeding on a petition . . . to a
person who is not a party to the proceeding without the express written consent of the person
who submitted the information.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(A). Thus, as CSM Corcoran
correctly noted, the case records “are not available to the public, and are not subject to release
under other federal statutes.” [ECF 55] at 6 (emphasis in original). Because these records are
already protected from the public view, there is no need to seal them.
Lastly, the Court notes that J.A.C. filed a motion for leave to supplement his motion for
review on March 28, 2025. Mot. [ECF 63]. The Court grants the motion. However, while the
supplementary information provided by J.A.C. further demonstrates the harm that he has
only decision that references petitioner by name is the 2012 dismissal decision. The other decisions reference
petitioner by the initials, J.A.C.
10 To the extent that the special masters were able to accommodate J.A.C.’s various requests since the publication of
the initial decison, they have done so. Thus, when his mother requested—in 2019—that the PDF file associated with
the publicly-available decision and the link to the document be removed from the internet, CSM Dorsey obliged to
the extent she could by ordering that J.A.C.’s name be redacted in the case caption and the caption that appears on
CM/ECF online in order to reduce the potential that an internet search would lead directly to the unredacted version
of the decision. [ECF 39] at 4. Next, when J.A.C. requested—again in 2019—that CSM Dorsey not publish her June
2019 decision on the internet or that his mother be referred to only by her initials, she once again obliged to the
extent she could by redacting his mother’s name from the decision. [ECF 41] at 3.
7

Case 1:03-vv-02807-TMD Document 69 Filed 04/29/25 Page 8 of 8
experienced as a result of his Vaccine Act case and the public disclosure of his identity in the
2012 dismissal decision, this information does not affect the Court’s conclusion.11
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, J.A.C. has not demonstrated that CSM Corcoran’s decision denying his motion to
seal the records in his case was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law. Therefore, his motion for review [ECF 56] is DENIED, and the CSM
Corcoran’s decision of December 4, 2024, is SUSTAINED. Additionally, J.A.C.’s motion for
leave to supplement his motion for review [ECF 63] is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is
DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thompson M. Dietz
THOMPSON M. DIETZ, Judge
11 In his reply, J.A.C. requests that the Court consider his “November 2024 letter to Chief Judge Kaplan” and that
this letter “be formally entered into the record to ensure the appellate judge has full awareness of these critical
issues.” [ECF 62] at 1. This letter seeks to “formally lodge a complaint regarding the handling of [J.A.C.’s] Vaccine
Court case initially presided over by Special Master Dorsey.” Id. at 2. Therefore, it has been properly referred by
Chief Judge Kaplan as a judicial misconduct complaint, which is handled as a separate matter from the pending
motion for review.
8