Sign in Subscribe
Social services

Vaccine Rule 18(b) Redaction Request Decision: Overview of Petitioner's Case and Relevant Legal Considerations

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

The United States Court of Federal Claims has issued an order on a motion to redact a decision in the case of P.J. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (No. 19-626V). The petitioner, P.J., sought to redact her name from the publicly available version of the decision dismissing her case, alleging that publishing her name would facilitate stalking due to her job and past experiences. The Court granted the motion, considering the applicable legal standards and the petitioner's documentation of personal safety concerns.

Key Takeaways:

  • The petitioner, P.J., filed a motion to redact her name from the decision dismissing her case under Vaccine Rule 18(b), citing concerns about personal safety and well-being.
  • The Court considered the legal standard for redaction under Vaccine Rule 18(b), which requires an objecting party to submit documentation showing that employment or personal safety would be adversely affected by the release of medical information.
  • The Court found that petitioner had substantiated her request for redaction, noting that she had provided specific details about her job and past experiences that heightened her risk of stalking.
  • The Court granted the petitioner's motion, ordering the redaction of her name from the decision and the caption of the case.
  • The decision highlights the importance of documenting specific concerns about personal safety and well-being when requesting redaction under Vaccine Rule 18(b).
  • The case demonstrates the Court's consideration of the petitioner's individual circumstances and the need for a case-by-case approach to redaction decisions.

Statistics:

  • Petitioner filed her motion to redact on January 13, 2025.
  • The Court granted the motion on September 2, 2025.
  • Vaccine Rule 18 was amended on July 29, 2024, to require an objecting party to submit documentation showing adverse effects to employment or personal safety.
  • The Court has granted several motions to redact in similar cases, citing the need for a case-by-case approach to redaction decisions.

Sources:

  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 19-626V, P.J. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
  • Vaccine Rule 18(b)
  • E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2018)
  • National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2012)
  • Langland v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 07-36V, 2011 WL 802695 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 3, 2011)
  • W.C. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440 (2011)
  • K.L. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 123 Fed. Cl. 497 (2015)

Read more