LymeNet Home LymeNet Home Page LymeNet Flash Discussion LymeNet Support Group Database LymeNet Literature Library LymeNet Legal Resources LymeNet Medical & Scientific Abstract Database LymeNet Newsletter Home Page LymeNet Recommended Books LymeNet Tick Pictures Search The LymeNet Site LymeNet Links LymeNet Frequently Asked Questions About The Lyme Disease Network LymeNet Menu

LymeNet on Facebook

LymeNet on Twitter



Tax deductible

The Lyme Disease Network receives a commission from Amazon.com for each purchase originating from this site.

When purchasing from Amazon.com, please
click here first.

Thank you.

LymeNet Flash Discussion
Dedicated to the Bachmann Family

LymeNet needs your help:
LymeNet fund drive


The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations.
In the United States, your donations are tax deductible.

LymeNet Flash Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» LymeNet Flash » Questions and Discussion » General Support » Lyme Patient's Lawsuit Update Link (Texarkana)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Lyme Patient's Lawsuit Update Link (Texarkana)
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bartenderbonnie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Copy and paste.

This link has been set up to report on the latest developments in the lawsuit filed in Texarkana, Lyme patients vs IDSA and Insurers.

https://www.thefirstepidemic.com/lyme-lawsuit

Posts: 1561 | From Florida | Registered: Nov 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TX Lyme Mom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scroll way far down on the page at the link in the previous message posted by Bonnie, above, in order to find 4 more very valuable links to the actual court documents.

Then, be prepared to experience a variety of emotions -- from elation and joy to outrage and indignation, and alas, sometimes boredom too -- as you read through the arguments by the plaintiffs (our team, the good guys) and by the defendants (the IDSA bad boys) within these four court documents.

(I'll attempt to re-post those 4 links again below, for your convenience, but I don't know if this attempt will be successful. If not successful, then at least you'll know what to look for at the link inside Bonnie's message, above).


November 2017: The Lawsuit: Torrey v. IDSA et al

September 2018: Decision on IDSA et al Motion to Dismiss (upholding most of the Torrey assertions)

February 2019: Motion by IDSA et al defendants seeking medical examinations of Lyme patients -- filed 2/14/2019

February 2019: Response by Torrey plaintiffs to second motion to dismiss -- filed 2/21/2019

[ 03-04-2019, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: TX Lyme Mom ]

Posts: 4439 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TX Lyme Mom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, so I managed to make it as far as the first 7 pages of the third court document (filed just 2 weeks ago, Feb. 14, 2019) before I got so upset about the demand by the defendants that plaintiffs undergo independent medical examinations (IME) by an IDSA-selected doctor in North Texas, including blood and urine samples sent to Quest or Lab Corp that I couldn't read any further.

Imagine my surprise and delight this morning when I woke up to continue reading (on page 9 of the third document) under the subheading "Certificate of Conference" the following quoted statements:

"Plaintiffs’ counsel rejected any IME on the grounds that, '[w]hile there are a number of reasons and problems with your request, first and foremost this is not a personal injury case. Therefore IME’s are no [sic] appropriate.'"

"Counsel for Plaintiffs stated that the call was unnecessary because the parties were at an impasse regarding the IME, that Plaintiffs would not consider an IME conducted by any physician who was not a member of ILADS, and that arranging examinations closer to the individual Plaintiffs’ homes would not change Plaintiffs’ position on the requested IMEs. Accordingly, the parties are at an impasse regarding this request for an IME and it must be submitted to the Court for resolution."

It appears to me that it will be necessary for the Plaintiffs' Attorney insist that doctors from ILADS become involved in this case, instead of giving into the Defendants' demand of allowing their IDSA doctor to examine these Lyme patients. Otherwise, I cannot foresee a successful outcome.

Stay tuned....

....or better yet, continue reading these exciting court documents for yourself because I'm being interrupted and must stop now.....

Posts: 4439 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mashieniblick
Member
Member # 50588

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mashieniblick     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the IDSA won this argument already:

ORDER GRANTING INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
Before the Court is the motion of Defendants Anthem, Inc., the Infectious Diseases Society
of America, and the Doctor Defendants1
(herein, “Moving Defendants”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 35, requesting that the Court order those Plaintiffs who allege that they currently have, or
previously have had, Lyme disease—including so-called “chronic Lyme disease” (the “Lyme
Claimants”)2—to submit to an independent medical examination by infectious disease specialist
Dr. Dina Torten (the “Motion”). Having considered the Motion and the Lyme Claimants’ response,
the Court finds good cause for the independent medical examinations, that the Motion should be
granted, and the following orders should be entered:
It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
1
The individual doctors remaining in this suit are: Dr. Gary Wormser, Dr. Raymond J.
Dattwyler, Dr. Eugene Shapiro, Dr. John J. Halperin, Dr. Leonard Sigal, and Dr. Allen Steere
(collectively, the “Doctor Defendants”)
2
Lisa Torrey, Amy Hanneken, Jane Powell, Carol Fisch, Christopher Valerio, Steven Ward,
Randy Sykes, Brienna Reed, Rosetta Fuller, Adriana Monteiro Moreira, Jessica Mckinnie, Kristine
Woodard, Dr. Michael Fundenberger, Gayle Clarke, Allison Lynn Caruana, Chloe Lohmeyer, Max
Shindler, Tawnya Dawn Smith, Monet Pitre, Mike Peacher, Ashleigh Peacher, Alarie Bowerman,
Elisa Bowerman, Emory Bowerman, and Anais Bowerman.
Case 5:17-cv-00190-RWS Document 154-5 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3380
Page 2
It is further ORDERED that each Lyme Claimant appear for an independent
medical examination at the offices of Dr. Torten, 4461 Coit Road, Pavilion 2, Suite
409, Frisco, TX 75035.
It is further ORDERED that each Lyme Claimant select a date and time for their
independent medical examination from the list of available times attached to the
Motion as Exhibit B, no later than [March 19, 2019].
It is further ORDERED that Dr. Torten shall be permitted to perform an
independent medical examination on the Lyme Claimants to determine whether
they have, or previously have had Lyme disease, identify their symptoms,
recommend any further testing required in order to determine whether they are
currently suffering from Lyme disease, and assess the treatment they have received
to date.
It is further ORDERED that Dr. Torten is authorized to obtain a complete history
and physical examination of the Lyme Claimants, including a full review of systems
if she believes they are necessary to assess whether the Lyme Claimant is currently
suffering from Lyme disease or has had Lyme disease in the past.
It is further ORDERED that Dr. Torten is authorized to request that each Lyme
Claimant, before appearing for the exam, submit blood and urine samples for
testing relevant to Lyme disease – specifically an ELISA and Western Blot test for
Lyme disease – to a recognized national FDA-approved testing lab (such as
LabCorp or Quest or another lab approved by Dr. Torten).
It is further ORDERED that Dr. Torten is authorized to request and obtain other
tests she deems appropriate following the exam if necessary to determine whether
the Lyme Claimant is currently suffering from Lyme disease or had Lyme disease
in the past

Posts: 60 | From Lees Summit, MO | Registered: Jun 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mashieniblick
Member
Member # 50588

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mashieniblick     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not looking good. The defendants (IDSA and co) are going to use their selected IDSA doctor to say that the Plaintifss never had Lyme disease and try to get the case dismissed.
Posts: 60 | From Lees Summit, MO | Registered: Jun 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TX Lyme Mom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mashieniblick:
Not looking good. The defendants (IDSA and co) are going to use their selected IDSA doctor to say that the Plaintifss never had Lyme disease and try to get the case dismissed.

Let's not give up so easily. We've got to figure out how to get one or more ILADS doctors into the game as expert witnesses. I'm thinking about Dr. D.C. because he is a past president of ILADS and also because he is the author of these two books:

https://www.amazon.com/Disease-Takes-Medicine-Daniel-Cameron/dp/0999685805/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_2?keywords=Daniel+Cameron+%2B+Lyme+Disease&qid=1551801095&s=books&sr=1-2-fkmrnull

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1798757281/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=Daniel+Cameron+%2B+Lyme+Disease&qid=1551801095&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmrnull

Later today, I'm hoping to be able to contact the lead attorney for the plaintiffs and suggest my idea to him. I'm also hoping to find out why the court rejected the Plaintiff's request to use an ILADS doctor for the IMEs. Wish me luck please.

Also, let's do some brainstorming together. If anyone else has any ideas, please post them here under this topic.

Remember: "The opera isn't over until the fat lady sings!"

Posts: 4439 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TX Lyme Mom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hooray! I finally found one of my favorite PubMed abstracts which should be helpful to the plaintiffs in countering the IDSA's arguments based on their court-ordered independent medical exams of the plaintiffs. (Pertinent passages are marked with *** )

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613324

Infection. 1989 Nov-Dec;17(6):355-9.

Survival of Borrelia burgdorferi in antibiotically treated patients with Lyme borreliosis.

Preac-Mursic V1, Weber K, Pfister HW, Wilske B, Gross B, Baumann A, Prokop J.

Author information
Neurologische Klinik Grosshadern, München, FR Germany.

Abstract
The persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in patients treated with antibiotics is described. The diagnosis of Lyme disease is based on clinical symptoms, epidemiology and specific IgG and IgM antibody titers to B. burgdorferi in serum.

***Antibiotic therapy may abrogate the antibody response to the infection as shown in our patients.***

***B. burgdorferi may persist as shown by positive culture in MKP-medium; patients may have subclinical or clinical disease without diagnostic antibody titers to B. burgdorferi. ***

***We conclude that early stage of the disease as well as chronic Lyme disease with persistence of B. burgdorferi after antibiotic therapy cannot be excluded when the serum is negative for antibodies against B. burgdorferi.***

PMID: 2613324


My Comment:
If a former elementary school teacher, such as myself, can figure this stuff out, then these so-called IDSA "experts" just aren't trying very hard.

These bad boys from the IDSA need to go back and do their homework over again, instead of trying to bluff their answers.

PS -- Note the earlier 1989 date on this PubMed article. It was published in a leading international journal, too! The IDSA has absolutely no excuse whatsoever for overlooking this important basic scientific concept.

Posts: 4439 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
duncan
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 46242

Icon 1 posted      Profile for duncan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find the motion a little disconcerting, if only because what it seeks to achieve either is virtually not doable, or because it seems to fall squarely into the lap of the defendants as almost inadvertently undervaluing some of the controversies at play that led to this court case.

They cannot prove any of those patients currently have Lyme, unless they get extraordinarily lucky and locate a spirochete in a blood or CSF draw. The odds of this direct evidence being found are strikingly small.

Odds are also against PCR testing, and, regardless, I suspect the IDSA lawyers would dispute any positive PCR results as merely signs of unviable remnants.

As for demonstrating past infection - doesn't this get to the heart of the matter? Isn't one of the monopolistic constraints placed on competing Lyme protocols forcing doctors to use diagnostic algorithms that are in dispute?

So, isn't the net effect a bit of circular reasoning, i.e., employing a byproduct (the 2T) of what may be a monopolistic enterprise, arguably used to the effect of squelching competing interpretations, to prove it's not a monopolistic enterprise?

Sorry, having trouble writing with clarity today.

[ 03-05-2019, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: duncan ]

Posts: 205 | From Unitied States | Registered: Jul 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TX Lyme Mom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm editing to delete my original message, upon advice from a trusted insider contact.

I will state, however, that I'm more confident than ever before that this case is in very good hands and that our side will prevail.

Furthermore, I will not be posting any more on this matter because I don't want to risk jinxing it.

Please try to focus on your own healing, instead, because worry and negative emotions are detrimental to healing.

Also, if so inclined, you might want to send up prayers of thanksgiving for the plaintiffs' courage and for their service to our Lyme community.

[ 03-06-2019, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: TX Lyme Mom ]

Posts: 4439 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TX Lyme Mom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bartenderbonnie:
Now is the time to educate the great state of Texas about the latest research on Tick Borne Infections !

Bonnie,
I'm happy to report that we are well ahead of the game down here in Texas when it comes to our state medical board and our other state officials because we've been doing this for the last two decades -- which I'll try to explain in another separate topic later, if/when spare time permits.

So, let's not distract from this important RICO topic right now, please.

My suggestion would be for you to delete your previous message about this idea and save it for later, under another separate topic heading, if you don't mind please. TIA.

PS -- Thanks for your passion and enthusiasm and inspiration though. Without your (and others') recent help, Bonnie, my own recent efforts would have come to naught.

Posts: 4439 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | LymeNet home page | Privacy Statement

© 1993-2019 The Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Use of the LymeNet Site is subject to the Terms and Conditions.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3


Home | Flash Discussion | Support Groups | On-Line Library
Legal Resources | Medical Abstracts | Newsletter | Books
Pictures | Site Search | Links | Help/Questions
About LymeNet | Webmaster