C.S. v. HHS - Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) (2013)

C.S. filed a petition on May 9, 2007, alleging that multiple vaccinations he received between August and November 2004 had caused him to develop Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The vaccinations were: tetanus-diphtheria (Td) and meningococcal vaccines on August 19, 2004; measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), hepatitis A, and hepatitis B vaccines on September 3, 2004; and inactivated polio (IPV) and hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccines on November 1 and 4, 2004.

All vaccines administered were listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, and GBS was alleged as a cause-in-fact injury. The parties entered a stipulation resolving the claim, and Special Master Zane entered a decision awarding compensation to C.S. on January 23, 2013.

One day later, on January 24, 2013, C.S. filed a motion requesting that his name be redacted from the published decision and replaced with his initials, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B) of the Vaccine Act. He stated that he feared disclosure of his name linked to his medical conditions could jeopardize his career and effectiveness as a teacher in the classroom, with students and their parents.

Respondent opposed the motion, arguing that C.S. had provided insufficient support for the claim that disclosure would cause the feared consequences. Special Master Zane granted the motion on August 19, 2013.

The special master held that the Vaccine Act's redaction provision uses identical language to FOIA Exemption 6, and that these provisions should be interpreted consistently under W.C. v. Secretary of HHS, 100 Fed.

Cl. 440 (2011). The analysis required balancing the petitioner's privacy interest against the public interest in disclosure.

The special master found the privacy interest substantial: the Supreme Court has held that "the invasion of privacy becomes significant when the personal information is linked to particular people," and linking a person's name to his medical conditions in a published judicial decision triggers a cognizable privacy interest. The public interest in disclosure under the Vaccine Act, the special master found, is more limited than the general civil-case public interest in government transparency — the Vaccine Act's disclosure provisions serve the purpose of providing the public with information about vaccines and their risks, not of exposing individual petitioners' identities.

The Senate Committee Report on the Vaccine Act had expressly stated that the committee "did not believe that the name of the individual who suffered an adverse reaction need be available to the public." The purposes of the Vaccine Act were fully served by disclosing the decision with the petitioner's name redacted and his initials substituted. The special master also rejected respondent's argument that the items subject to redaction under Vaccine Rule 18(a) are limited to an exhaustive list — the rule's "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy" language must be interpreted in light of governing principles, which encompass a person's name when linked to medical information.