Talk:Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 19, 2013 Peer review Reviewed
October 19, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
May 9, 2014 Peer review Not reviewed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Peer review[edit]

I have moved the above discussion, which took place as the peer review was opened, to the peer review. The peer review is transcluded below: LT90001 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Judges = special masters[edit]

This needs to be clarified but I don't have the time right now. To the uninitiated it does appear as if they are different people.--Daffydavid (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Not every article requires images and adding images that are at best peripheral is not the way to go. The measles image is debatable but the latest added image (I assume it is thimerosal) is not labeled properly and even it was it would still be debatable. Are there no images of protesters outside the court during the trial or something similar? Maybe an image of one of the claimants that is free use.--Daffydavid (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Autism omnibus trial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 07:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Abbreviations are not identified prior to first use, rendering the prose unclear. For example, what is the HRSA? It is not clearly identified as the Health Resources and Services Administration. MMR is never identified as measles, mumps, and rubella. See below comments.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See below comments.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Although not required for GA status, there are some bare URLs that are cited, while some are done via CS1 templates. It is a better practice to be consistent.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. Infobox contains inaccurate information. Court is the United States Court of Federal Claims, not the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Lead is inaccurate, the case started July 3, 2002 (see Docket of Omnibus Autism Proceeding.)
2c. it contains no original research. See comments.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The article does not describe the flow of a vaccine case, nor the role of each part.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. No significant improvement after holding open for over a month.

I am starting the review, but have a great many concerns.

First, while the science on this may be accurately described, the legal process and description is not. The article does not clearly identify that there were several distinct test cases, including Cedillo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services, 89 Fed. Cl. 158 (Fed. Cl. 2009) aff'd, 617 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Hazlehurst v. Sec'y of Dept. of Health & Human Services, 03-654V, 2009 WL 332306 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 12, 2009) aff'd sub nom. Hazlehurst ex rel. Hazlehurst v. Sec'y, Dept. of Health & Human Services, 88 Fed. Cl. 473 (Fed. Cl. 2009) aff'd sub nom. Hazlehurst v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services, 604 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010); and Snyder ex rel. Snyder v. Sec'y of Dept. of Health & Human Services, 01-162V, 2009 WL 332044 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 12, 2009). It concentrates on Cedillo only, with only passing mention of the other two.

Second, there was no "verdict" in the case. The special masters issued findings of fact and a decision, not a verdict. There is nothing in the record that I've found that indicates that there was a verdict, yet there is a section in the article titled verdict.

Third, there is no background about the Vaccine court in the article, with only a "See also" mention. As this is a cause of action in the "Vaccine court", there should be some discussion in the article about the court.

I will go through and look at this in more depth, but it may be prudent to withdraw the nomination, work on the legal side of the article, and re-nominate it at a later date. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 08:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Infobox[edit]

  • Case is misidentified as Cedillo, Hazlehurst, and Snyder v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, while it is actually three separate cases:
  • Cedillo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services
  • Hazlehurst v. Sec'y of Dept. of Health & Human Services
  • Snyder ex rel. Snyder v. Sec'y of Dept. of Health & Human Services
  • Cedillo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services, 98-916V, 2009 U.S. Claims LEXIS 146, 2009 WL 331968 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 12, 2009) aff'd, 89 Fed. Cl. 158 (Fed. Cl. 2009) aff'd, 617 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
  • Hazlehurst v. Sec'y of Dept. of Health & Human Services, 03-654V, 2009 U.S. Claims LEXIS 159, 2009 WL 332306 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 12, 2009) aff'd sub nom. Hazlehurst ex rel. Hazlehurst v. Sec'y, Dept. of Health & Human Services, 88 Fed. Cl. 473 (Fed. Cl. 2009) aff'd sub nom. Hazlehurst v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services, 604 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
  • Snyder ex rel. Snyder v. Sec'y of Dept. of Health & Human Services, 01-162V, 2009 U.S. Claims LEXIS 193, 2009 WL 332044 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 12, 2009).
  • Judges are misidentified as being on all cases.
  • George L. Hastings, Jr. heard Cedillo
  • Patricia E. Campbell-Smith heard Hazlehurst
  • Denise Vowell heard Snyder
  • Appealed to is incorrect (see above on courts)
  • Really, as this is three separate cases, there should be separate infoboxes. Another option is to re-title this as Cedillo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services and discuss this case. It would allow you to just mention the other two cases, as is currently done in the article. Otherwise the information on those cases need to be drastically expanded. More to follow. GregJackP Boomer! 17:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede[edit]

  • The first sentence misstates the legal action. The trials involved three individual cases. The use of the phrase "concerned approximately 4,800 families" is inaccurate and infers that this was a class action suit, which it was not. The cases affected a great many people, but that was a subsequent event or development, not part of the case or trial itself.
  • MMR vaccine is not clear, and should be spelled out for its first use as "measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR vaccine)."
  • The lede does not summarize the body of the article. See MOS:LEAD.
  • Citations do not belong in the lede. See WP:CITELEAD.
  • The lede is too short. The article is 36K, so the lede should be three or four paragraphs, minimum. See WP:LEADLENGTH. More to follow. GregJackP Boomer! 18:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Background[edit]

  • It is not clear that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) is a trust fund established to pay claims on injuries. The statement also needs to be cited to a source.
  • NVICP should link to National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, not redirected to Vaccine court. Vaccine court should be linked to, but under its own name and to explain its purpose, which is different from the purpose of the NVICP.
  • The background only covers the Cedillo case.
  • There is no discussion of the Autism General Order #1, issued July 3, 2002, by Special Master Gary J. Golkiewicz, which established the unique process and handling of these claims.
  • For example, procedural matters were decided by the three masters together, but individual cases were decided by individual masters, per the requirements of the statute.
  • No mention is made of the discover process that lasted from 2002 to 2006, nor that this is an extremely unusual amount of time for discovery.
  • No mention is made of the three theories of claims.
  • There is no mention of Petitioner's Steering Committee (PSC), nor that the Cedillo case was selected to test the first theory, "(1) that the combination of the MMR vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines can cause autism. . . ." Cedillo, at *9.
  • There is no explanation of the test case approach.
  • There is no discussion of the Hazlehurst or Snyder backgrounds. More to follow. GregJackP Boomer! 20:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Overview[edit]

  • Again, no discussion of the Hazlehurst or Snyder cases.
Plaintiff's case[edit]
  • Last sentence about Hasting's decision needs to be in the Verdict section, not in the plaintiff's case section.
Opposing arguments[edit]
  • Too much "countered" testimony, to the point that the prose becomes unclear.
Verdict[edit]
  • As previously noted, there was no verdict in these cases.
  • Although only one case is discussed, this section addresses the rulings in all three cases.
  • The discussion of three subsequent cases, Mead, King, and Dwyer, needs to be in a Subsequent developments or Impact section. More to follow. GregJackP Boomer! 02:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Impact[edit]

  • No source cited for SafeMinds quote.
  • No source cited for Rebecca Estepp quote. If these two quotes are supported by the LA Times source, it needs to be clearly identified in the article.
  • No source cited for Paul Offit quote.
  • No explanation on the actual impact, other than the quotes issued immediately following the decision.

References[edit]

  • Citations are not consistent, although this won't affect GA status.
  • Some have periods following, some do not.
  • Some appear to use CS1 templates, others do not.
  • FN1 does not support the material.
  • FN2 is behind a paywall and should be identified as such. It does not support the 4,800 number, nor the statement about MMR vaccine, thimorosal, or a combination of the two. WP:OR.
  • FN3 does not support the material. It says nothing about the families seeking compensation.
  • Checked through FN10, more to follow. GregJackP Boomer! 13:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • FN14 does not support the quote "autistic children have a greater body burden of mercury." The quote does not appear, although similar language does appear.
  • As this appears to occur throughout the article, the references need to be completely reviewed. GregJackP Boomer! 17:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

I am placing the article on hold for the nominator to correct the deficiencies. GregJackP Boomer! 17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Fail[edit]

I am failing this article. There has been no significant improvement in over a month, and almost no edits during that time. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 18:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I propose to take on this review. I am interested in legal matters and the MMR vaccine issue is also of interest to me. I will study the article in detail in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

First reading[edit]

In general, this is an excellent, well-written and well-organised article. There were a few minor points I noticed. I usually leave reading the lead to the end as then I can better observe how well it summarises the article.

  • The first sentence of "Background" should mention the United States.
  • "Stephen Bustin of Queen Mary, University of London." - No comma required in the university title.
  • You should explain what DMSA is.
  • You should wikilink "in vitro", "peer-reviewed",
  • "In the second set of the proceedings, which pertained to thimerosal alone (as opposed to thimerosal working in conjunction with MMR), Brent testified, with regard to Jordan King and one other autistic child who also served as a test case in this trial, that there was "absolutely no reason to chelate them for any mercury-related reason."" - this sentence is complex and confusing.
  • You should explain what "chelate" means in this context.
  • "In addition, Bustin and Bertus Rima both testified that Cotter was unable to replicate the Unigenetics lab's results, in contrast to Kennedy's claim that they were." - "were" what?

Having reached the end of the article, I studied the lead and found the following two statements that are not repeated in the body of the text. They need to be included and cited there:

  • "Though the NVICP had existed since 1988, it was not designed to handle the thousands of cases it received from 1999 to 2007, which led to the establishment of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding in 2002 by Gary J. Golkiewicz."
  • "George Hastings stating that "the Cedillos have been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Should the infobox mention all three of the judges sitting in the court case? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that you have dealt with the first three comments I made but not with the others. Most are relatively unimportant but I regard the final comments about the lead as important. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with the alterations made in response to my comments made above and believe this article fulfils the GA criteria. A very nice article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)