Talk:Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services/GA1

GA Review
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)

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)

Infobox

 * 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


 * Court is misidentified as United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit instead of United States Court of Federal Claims.
 * Although not a requirement, the court's seal (File:US-CourtOfFederalClaims-Seal.svg) should be shown in the infobox.
 * Case full names omitted from infobox.
 * Case citation omitted:
 * 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

 * 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

 * 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

 * Again, no discussion of the Hazlehurst or Snyder cases.

Plaintiff's case

 * Last sentence about Hasting's decision needs to be in the Verdict section, not in the plaintiff's case section.

Opposing arguments

 * Too much "countered" testimony, to the point that the prose becomes unclear.

Verdict

 * 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

 * 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.

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

Fail
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)