CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

legal case in United States Court of Federal Claims, decided February 12, 2009

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 13, 2026
Entity authorityQ17007160
Source-derived summary

Michelle Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, also known as Cedillo, was a court case involving the family of Michelle Cedillo, an autistic girl whose parents sued the United States government because they believed that her autism was caused by her receipt of both the measles-mumps-and-rubella vaccine (also known as the MMR vaccine) and thimerosal-containing vaccines. The case was a part of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, where petitioners were required to present three test cases for each proposed mechanism by which vaccines had, according to them, caused their children's autism; Cedillo was the first such case for the MMR-and-thimerosal hypothesis.

The family sought compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), but in order to qualify they were required to prove that it was more likely than not that their children's autism was caused by their vaccines. The scientific community had concluded that vaccines did not cause autism years before the first cases were heard, and concern was therefore expressed that the relatively lax evidentiary standards of the NVICP could lead to compensation being awarded in spite of the compelling scientific evidence to the contrary. This, some vaccine supporters argued, might have serious adverse public health effects by discouraging vaccine manufacturers from producing more childhood vaccines. 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.

The trial opened on June 11, 2007, in Washington, D.C. The Cedillos' six expert witnesses argued that thimerosal-containing vaccines degraded Michelle's immune system, which in turn made it possible for the weakened measles virus in the MMR vaccine to cause a persistent infection leading to autism. In support of this hypothesis, the Cedillos' witnesses relied on the reported detection of measles virus in Michelle's gastrointestinal tract by John O'Leary's Unigenetics laboratory in Dublin. However, the government's expert witnesses conclusively demonstrated that O'Leary's positive results were caused by contamination in the Unigenetics lab rather than an actual infection.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services” as legal case in United States Court of Federal Claims, decided February 12, 2009. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Cedillo, Secretary and Health.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1988, 1999, 2007, 2002—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Cedillo, Secretary and Health providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services”, the useful work is to connect “legal case in United States Court of Federal Claims, decided February 12, 2009” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q17007160. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1988, 1999, 2007 and 2002.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services primary sources, Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services archive and Cedillo research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.