Historic Day in Court

Test Trials for the Autism Omnibus Proceedings begins
By Cris Italia

There isn’t enough space in this magazine to explain what took place in the United States Court of Federal Claims during the period of June 11 through June 25. It certainly wasn’t the first vaccine related trial held, but this was historic in that it was the first test case of the Autism Omnibus proceedings.

There are two reasons why the Vaccine Court decided to hear the Autism Omnibus proceedings. Firstly, the court wanted to the hear the claim under the Vaccine Act of Michelle Cedillo, a 12-year-old from Yuma, Ariz., who was diagnosed with autism at the age of 3. The court will determine whether or not Michelle’s autism and other medical conditions were caused by vaccines. Michelle’s mom, Theresa Cedillo, filed her claim in 1998, a year after Michelle received the MMR vaccine.

The second purpose for this monumental proceeding is that Michelle is just one of over 4,800 children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders whose parents have filed for compensation claims under the Vaccine Act. These claims have been grouped together in a joint proceeding, which has been named the Autism Omnibus. The committee of attorneys who represent the petitioners in the Autism Omnibus chose Michelle’s case as the first test case in the proceeding. So while the three Special Masters assigned to these proceedings hear Michelle’s case, they have also listened to extensive expert testimony concerning the petitioner’s first general causation theory, that the MMR vaccines and thimerosal containing vaccines can combine to cause autism.

Hearing the case are Special Masters George L. Hastings, Patricia Campbell-Smith and Denise Vowell. While Hastings will be the only Special Master to rule on the Cedillo case, all three will have input on the three test cases that will take place in the near future. Officially, Theresa and her husband, Michael Cedillo, are the petitioners, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services is the respondent.

"I felt really honored to speak for all the other families," Theresa says about her case being first. "We were kind of in shock when we first found out. Everything moved so quickly and we were besides ourselves."

Almost nine years have passed since Theresa first filed her claim with the vaccine court, but she feels as though this was a positive experience. The Cedillo family prepared for their trip to Washington, D.C., when they found out they had been chosen in January. "It was an extraordinary feeling," she says. "We got to meet a lot of parents who have been very supportive. Michelle came with us too, which we usually can’t do going away with everyone in the family."

With Theresa and Michael stationed in the nation’s capital for three weeks, they had no choice but to bring Michelle with them. In order to do that, the Cedillos had to make arrangements for caretakers to be with their daughter all day. On the first day of the proceedings however, Michelle was present in the courtroom.

Michelle, who turns 13 on August 30, was born in 1994 and was a healthy baby. According to Theresa Cedillo, her daughter was reaching her milestones and was babbling at a year old. She would identify her father, kittens and some of her favorite foods. Theresa says that after Michelle received the MMR shot in December of 1995, she experienced high fevers and was never the same. For four straight days her fever was at 105 degrees, an alarming number for anyone. The fever came back in early January and lasted for another two days at which point Theresa noticed that her daughter stopped speaking. Since her diagnosis of autism in July of 1997, Michelle started to develop other medical conditions. She had constant diarrhea and she wouldn’t eat whole foods. In 2000, some tests found that Michelle had developed an ulcer between her stomach and the esophagus. Doctors told the Cedillos that was why Michelle was self-injurious.
She would always hit herself on the chest because she was in so much pain.

Her condition continued to worsen; Michelle would be hospitalized several times because of dehydration. She would refuse to eat or drink. "My husband and I were terrified," Theresa says. "After her fever I always thought she would return to what she was, but her behaviors got worse. It was a really bad time for us because there was nothing we could do."

Cedillo’s case concluded on June 26 with some controversy. It was agreed upon by the Special Masters and the attorneys for both the petitioner and respondent that because of the amount of testimony and information, there would be no closing arguments. Both counsels would submit their own post-trial briefs instead. At the request of Tom Powers, one of Cedillos’ attorneys, the Special Masters granted both sides closing statements that would not exceed 20 minutes.

Powers spoke briefly, recapping some of the moments of the trial. The government counsel, led by Vincent Matanoski, used it’s time to give the history of how this case leads back to bad science, particularly Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s "bad science."

"All the strands through these cases come back to him," Matanoski said during his closing statement. "He presented bad science."

Matanoski cited a paper published by the England-based medical journal, The Lancet, written by Andrew Wakefield in 1998, as the reason for "the stir that we’ve now seen reinterpreted, rearticulated a number of times until, more than 10 years later, we have it in our courtroom today."

What was supposed to be a closing statement turned into a 30 minute rant about how the case should never have reached the courtroom. "Hearing the other testimony wasn’t that pleasant," Cedillo admitted. "But we didn’t take it personally, even though it is very personal."

Despite the final day’s dramatics, Cedillo is satisfied with the proceedings. "The days were very long, but overall I thought it was a very fair process," she says. "The Special Masters went out of their way to make this fair, and it does feel fair."

Up next for the Cedillo family might just be a twoyear wait. The post-trial briefs will take months to be submitted. When a decision does come down, whether it is a win or a loss, her case will go to appeals court. By then Theresa says she’ll be well into her routine of caring for Michelle.

"I think the best thing for us to do is to sort of put this to the side," she says. "We have to go back to what we do and be patient. I’m not going to tell you that a win for us is extremely important for Michelle. Winning this case would mean I could finally get her the respite and care she needs."

A win would mean the government would finally acknowledge the vaccine/autism link. It would mean that Michelle would be taken care of financially for the rest of her life. She would be able to get treatment she has never received before. It would mean the Cedillos can stop refinancing their home. They wouldn’t have to worry about paying the second mortgage they took on the house just so they could attend the trial with Michelle. A win would mean a victory for the autism community and help on the way for over 4,800 other families.

"Non-medical bills for Michelle last year alone took $18,000 out of our own pockets," Theresa says. "There are special foods, diapers, wipes, changing pads; it all adds up."

"If we lose this case, then we go back to trying to manage the way we have been."