(DOWNLOAD) "Kurzon v. Department of Health and Human Services" by First Circuit United States Court Of Appeals " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Kurzon v. Department of Health and Human Services
- Author : First Circuit United States Court Of Appeals
- Release Date : January 22, 1981
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 71 KB
Description
Appellant brought this action in the district court under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, to compel disclosure of names and addresses of unsuccessful applicants for research grants from the National Cancer Institute. To support its withholding of this information, the government relied on the authority of exemption 6, which removes from the FOIA's mandatory disclosure requirement ""personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"", id. § 552(b)(6). The district court determined that disclosure, while not significantly advancing the public interest, could substantially injure the professional reputations of the applicants, and entered summary judgment for the government. Appellant, a physician and former clinical researcher, allegedly wanted to test his theory that the peer review method by which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) evaluate grant applications is biased against unorthodox proposals. He intended to interest a university group in studying rejected projects to determine if innovative research proposals had been fairly evaluated by the peer review system. The district court did not address the question whether the requested information constituted a medical, personnel or similar file, but proceeded directly to balance the privacy interest of the unfunded applicants against the public interest to be served by disclosure. The district court found appellant's proffered justification for disclosure seriously deficient in several respects. The court noted that appellant had failed to present ""any direct or probative data"" to support his thesis, that his approach was ""rather vague and unpromising"" and that his suggestion of an ombudsman to be an advocate for innovative research proposals amounted to a ""review of the reviewers"". An ombudsman would be incompatible, in the district court's view, with the ""scholarly and thoughtful reflection"" needed for review of grant proposals.