CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-0946V Filed: May 31, 2019 UNPUBLISHED **************************** The Estate of ARNOLD LEE MILLER, * Decedent, by and through * ARMICKA S. MILLER, as Personal * Representative, * * Order; Motion for Redaction; Untimely Petitioner, * Motion; Special Processing Unit (SPU); v. * Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre * Syndrome (GBS) SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * **************************** ORDER DENYING REDACTION – SPECIAL PROCESSING UNIT 1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On August 5, 2016, petitioner filed a petition as personal representative for the estate of her father, Arnold Lee Miller, for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Approximately one year later, the undersigned determined petitioner was entitled to compensation for Mr. Miller’s Guillain-Barré Syndrome and subsequent death and awarded her compensation in the amount of $350,000.00 as the executrix of Mr. Miller’s estate. Ruling on Entitlement (“Ruling”), issued July 28, 2017 (ECF No. 28); Decision Awarding Damages (“Decision”), issued Aug. 3, 2017 (ECF No. 31). Both Ruling and Decision included a footnote indicating they would be posted to the court’s website and 1 Because this unpublished Order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in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). To the extent petitioner would seek further redaction, 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. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). allowing petitioner “14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Ruling at 1 n.1; Decision at 1 n.1; see Vaccine Rule 18(b) (indicating decisions will be held for 14 days to allow the parties to file a request for redaction). Over one year later, on August 22, 2018, petitioner filed an out of time motion requesting “redaction of her name from the Decision posted on the Court’s website.” Petitioner’s Motion for Discretionary Redaction (“Motion”) at 3 (ECF No. 43). Respondent filed his response on September 19, 2018. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Redaction (“Response”) (ECF No. 45). For the reasons described below, the undersigned denies petitioner’s untimely filed motion for redaction. I. Legal Standard Section 12(d)(4)3 of the Vaccine Act, which is incorporated into Vaccine Rule 18, governs the disclosure of information submitted during a vaccine proceeding. Under § 12(d)(4)(A), information submitted in a vaccine proceeding may not be disclosed without the written consent ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals