Vaccine-injured woman who was compensated seeks to redact her name because she promotes vaccines

A woman who was compensated for her vaccine injury has asked the government to redact her name from the claim because she promotes vaccines.

Last year, Jessica Berthold applied for compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) for a shoulder injury after receiving the influenza vaccine. Her request was approved, making her one of the few vaccine victims compensated by the NVICP. Approvals for vaccine injury compensation are typically published on the US Court of Federal Claims website and remain publicly available. A claimant has 14 days to request a redaction of identifying information to avoid an “unwarranted invasion of privacy.”

Berthold had reason to want her name redacted. She works as the assistant director of public affairs for pediatrics at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), which includes two UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals. Her job frequently requires her to advocate for childhood vaccines, and Berthold was concerned that her employment might be affected if her vaccine injury compensation was discovered.

“In her position, she promotes research and clinical care in pediatrics to the public, specifically related to childhood vaccinations,” read a court document from the US Court of Federal Claims. “She represents her medical center which follows the American Academy of Pediatrics guidance on childhood vaccination, and often fields media queries concerning childhood vaccinations.”

Rejected

Berthold filed a request to have her name redacted from the approval order because she “does not want her experience with [a] poorly administered vaccine to become a story in itself that would interfere with her ability to advocate for vaccinations at large.” However, she failed to file the request within the 14 days.

US Court of Federal Claims Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran denied Berthold’s request for a redaction because the publication of her name alone, without her medical history, is not considered a “disclosure of personal information.” He also noted that her name had already been published in a previous ruling.

‍