Health knowledge made personal
Join this community!
› Share page:
Go
Search posts:

Autism Omnibus: Cedillo appeal denied

Posted Aug 11 2009 9:16am

In the Autism Omnibus Proceeding there were three “test case” hearings to decide if autism can be considered a “vaccine injury” due to MMR. In all three cases, the special masters (judges) decided that there wasn’t enough evidence. In fact, it “wasn’t even close”.

All three have been appealed. The first appeal was denied a few weeks ago.

The second appeal decision is in
, for the test case that was the hearing for Michelle Cedillo. This case had the most “general causation” information and so was the most complicated.

As with the Hazelhurst appeal document, this document is a very good summary of the hearing.

Here is the summary of the appeal arguments:

The Cedillos assert seven arguments in their motion for review to show that the Special Master’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law: (1) A panel of three Special Masters should not have heard the general causation evidence; (2) The Special Masters should not have allowed the last-minute expert reports and testimony of Dr. Stephen Bustin; (3) The Special Master improperly discounted the medical diagnoses and opinions of Michelle Cedillo’s treating physicians; (4) The Special Master improperly ignored concessions made by Respondent’s expert witnesses; (5) The Special Master ignored important aspects of Michelle Cedillo’s evidence; (6) The Special Master abused his discretion by refusing to consider important post-hearing evidence; and (7) the Special Master’s decision was contrary to law. Petitioners’ arguments four and five include multiple sub-parts, specifically raising the testimony of six expert witnesses and seven substantive areas of Petitioners’ evidence that the Special Master allegedly mis-evaluated.

Probably the key to the entire MMR -causes-autism idea, and the first subject that the appeals judge covered was the question of whether measles virus can be considered to persist in intestinal tissue. The petitioners case in this respect depends heavily on studies by Dr. Wakefields group and samples taken from Michelle Cedillo which both rely on the Unigenetics laboratory of Dr. O’Leary.

Without the test results of the Unigenetics Laboratory, Petitioners have lost a cornerstone to their causation theory. The fact that Petitioners did not prove the existence of any persistent vaccine-strain measles in Michelle Cedillo’s body leaves Petitioners well short of meeting their prima facie case that the MMR vaccine played any role in causing Michelle’s autism. Under these circumstances, Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and thus the burden never shifted to Respondent to rebut Petitioners’ proof. See Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278. The Special Master’s decision regarding the Uhlmann Study and the Unigenetics testing is reasonable in all respects, and could not in any sense be regarded as arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Since the MMR test cases were heard, another very important study has been published, further showing that there is a lack of persistent measles virus in children with autism and bowel problems.

Without going into the details on the other points in the decision, we can jump to the conclusion and see that it is succinct and clear:

The issue before our Court is not to determine the causes of autism. The Court can only hope that medical professionals succeed in identifying the causes and developing a cure for this tragic disease. Rather, the Court’s task is to weigh the Special Master’s February 12, 2009 decision under the applicable review standards of the Vaccine Act, and determine whether it should affirm or modify the decision to any extent. After performing this review, the Court is satisfied that the Special Master’s decision is rational and reasonable in all respects, and is in accordance with law. For the reasons addressed above, the Special Master’s decision is AFFIRMED.

Or, to put it more succinctly:

Petitioners still have the burden of proving their claims by a preponderance of the evidence, and the Special Master reasonably concluded that they failed to do so.

There is still one more MMR appeal in the works. Given the results of the first two, my guess is that the attorneys are preparing for the next step in the journey towards a civil case.

Without more evidence to support their case, I would have serious doubts about the MMR hypothesis winning in a civil trial. Since the omnibus hearing, there is more good evidence against the MMR hypothesis and the plaintiffs will face more stringent evidence rules.

2 people like this post.
Like  
Post a comment
Write a comment:

Related Searches