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 » Suing them

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Suing them
John S
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 19756

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John S     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some people definitely deserve to be sued over this. I wonder if we ever are proven right,will we have grounds to go after people like Wormser and the IDSA?

I woudn't even be interested in the money, I would donate it to find a cure, I would just like some form of retribution.

Posts: 743 | From New York | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John S
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 19756

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John S     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then how come they aren't being sued?
Posts: 743 | From New York | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wonko
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 18318

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wonko     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
John S, I commiserate with your desire for validation with all of this.

It's a lot of pressure to hide this illness to work, family, and "friends" who think we're nuts, or would if we let them know.

I end up feeling guilty when I'm not up to par. I get mixed up and forget that being sick is not a character flaw, even if it is with a contested illness like TBI.

Hang in there, we shall overcome!

Posts: 455 | From Was in PA, then MD, now in the Midwest | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
grandmother
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 19908

Icon 1 posted      Profile for grandmother     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The culture of corruption extends from DC to military, pharmacy, medicine, corporate, etc.

When all our leaders are beyond corrupt, this is what happens.

--------------------
www.drjoneskids.com

www.paulcraigroberts.org

www.zerohedge.com

Posts: 880 | From CT | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
carly
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 14810

Icon 1 posted      Profile for carly     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not about being right. It's far simpler than that. It's about $$.

Whoever has the bigger bank account will win. The loser will be discredited. Guess who that will be?

Posts: 797 | From New York | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sk8ter
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 8671

Icon 1 posted      Profile for sk8ter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greed is the downfall of every country...with all the corruption in DC right now we are on that road..God help us ...literally
Posts: 871 | From orange county, ca. | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tricky Tickey
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 26546

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tricky Tickey     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's all because 'they' are in the "good ole boys club", like Onbam says above, they got the Nukes behind em. It's a total sham, total. Somebody's covering up, I tell you. Call me paranoid, call me delusional, but somebody knows the truth out there.

--------------------
Early Disseminated LD- 2010.
Currently doing acupuncture and yoga.
Negative Igenex (IND & Pos Bands)
ISSUES AFTER: Tendonitis, letter reversal, Low immune system.
PREVENTION:SaltC,Iodine,Humaworm,
Chiropractic.

Posts: 1013 | From In a van down by the river. | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bartenderbonnie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your wish has been granted. . .

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/LymeDisease.pdf

Posts: 1673 | From Florida | Registered: Nov 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lymetoo
Moderator
Member # 743

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lymetoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Go Lisa and Kathryn, et al!!

--------------------
 -
oops!
--Lymetutu--
Opinions, not medical advice!

Posts: 93673 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robin123
Moderator
Member # 9197

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Robin123     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How far along is this RICO case? Anyone know?
Posts: 12702 | From San Francisco | Registered: May 2006  |  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 Robin123:
How far along is this RICO case? Anyone know?

Good question, Robin. I've been wondering the same thing!

Does anyone have enough legal background to know how to follow the progress of legal cases through our court system?

Or perhaps someone with a good background in journalism would know how to go about it?

I'm asking because I live in Texas. The case was filed in Texarkana, TX, and the law firm is based in Houston, TX. I knew David Kocurek, one of the deceased plaintiffs, but I don't know his widow and my attempt to contact her failed, so I'm not sure how much I can do.

[ 02-24-2019, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: TX Lyme Mom ]

Posts: 4468 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bartenderbonnie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's slowly working through pre-trial motions.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/22966933/Torrey_et_al_v_Infectious_Diseases_Society_of_America_et_al

Posts: 1673 | From Florida | Registered: Nov 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MissVictoria
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 45232

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MissVictoria     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't need to seek retribution. Karma will run its course, and is already. Focus on goodness and healing, and helping others. That is what will truly make you feel better.
Posts: 182 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 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 
Thanks, BartenderBonnie. You never cease to amaze me with your wealth of knowledge and your willingness to share it. LymeNet would not be the same without you!
Posts: 4468 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bartenderbonnie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Much obliged TX Lyme Mom.
We are in this together [group hug]

Posts: 1673 | 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 
Here's the link to a more detailed explanatory update:

https://www.lymedisease.org/idsa-lawsuit-pfeiffer/

Torrey v. IDSA, Lyme patient lawsuit
By Mary Beth Pfeiffer

A federal lawsuit that may just validate the pain of thousands of Lyme disease patients – and the flaws in prevailing tests and treatments — is moving ahead in a Texas courthouse, despite attempts to kill it.

The lawsuit’s progress is a big development in the decades-old struggle of patients whose post-treatment conditions – involving myriad neurological, cognitive, musculoskeletal, and cardiac symptoms — have long been misdiagnosed and minimized. Patients have hence had to seek out-of-pocket treatment from physicians who risk their licenses providing it.

The suit, Torrey v. Infectious Diseases Society of America et al, aims to change that, and, make no mistake, is a serious challenge to the Lyme status quo (see my article from 2017).

In the crosshairs of the case are six major architects and proponents of the guidelines that have dogmatically ruled Lyme disease care for two decades: Raymond J. Dattwyler, John J. Halperin, Eugene Shapiro, Leonard Sigal, Allen Steere, and Gary P. Wormser. (A seventh, Robert Nadelman, died in 2018.)

Beyond that A-list of Lyme actors, the lawsuit also accuses eight insurers of conspiring with the IDSA and the Lyme architects to advance treatment protocols that limited care options to the 25 named plaintiffs, two deceased, for whom the protocols did not work.

The companies are Blue Cross And Blue Shield Association, Anthem, Inc., Blue Cross And Blue Shield Of Texas, Aetna Inc., Cigna Corporation, Kaiser Permanente, Inc., United Healthcare Services, Inc., and Unitedhealth Group Incorporated.

Here’s what will happen shortly
A hearing on a second motion to dismiss the case will be held on March 12, 10 a.m., at the U.S. Federal Courthouse, 500 North State Line Avenue, Texarkana, Texas.

The suit, whose lead plaintiff is Texas resident Lisa Torrey, already survived one motion to dismiss. (See below.)

I’d encourage people who are invested in the outcome of the case to attend. Lyme patients have been portrayed, wrongly, as deluded, unpleasant and aggressive for a long time. Show them who you really are: Informed, concerned, intensely interested, and respectful of the court’s crucial role. Now’s the time.

Here’s what’s happened so far
The judge in part granted and in part denied a previous motion to dismiss the case.

In favor of the IDSA-insurers side, the judge agreed that the lawsuit did not sufficiently describe the alleged fraud that it maintains was committed by the defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The court, however, ruled the patients’ side could redraft the complaint under RICO. A request for an extension to do that will be among the issues considered at the March 12 hearing.

But the motion to dismiss was largely decided in favor of patients, including on the crucial assertion that the defendants violated anti-trust statutes under the Sherman Act.

As the judge put it, summarizing the case, “Defendants [as alleged] engaged in a conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade in the relevant market—the Lyme disease treatment market—by paying large consulting fees to the IDSA Panelists to pass the IDSA guidelines which deny the existence of chronic Lyme disease and establish the standard that all Lyme disease is cured with short-term antibiotics.”

Insurers then were able to deny claims, and doctors who treated outside the guidelines were marginalized in what became a monopolistic marketplace, the suit maintains.

In upholding the suit’s anti-trust assertion, the judge wrote: “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that, in the absence of the IDSA, there would be competition among doctors for the treatment of chronic Lyme disease and competition among insurance carriers for coverage for such treatments.

Similarly, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants’ adoption of the IDSA guidelines and standard of care for the testing, diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease has harmed patients and doctors nationwide. … The Court finds a nationwide geographic market has been properly alleged.”

All of this, of course, must be proven at trial.

There’s more
Beyond this, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ request for discovery, but so far it has been limited only to documents from four years before the lawsuit’s filing. The judge wrote, in reference to whether the court has jurisdiction to order discovery: “The Court finds that Plaintiffs have pointed to enough evidence preliminarily establishing personal jurisdiction over the IDSA Panelists to warrant jurisdictional discovery. Specifically, Plaintiffs point to the declarations provided by each of the IDSA Panelists in which each doctor attests to having visited Texas for professional purposes during the relevant time periods. …Moreover, Plaintiffs have established that the IDSA Panelists’ research and professional activities focus primarily on Lyme disease.” In a filing Friday, the Torrey lawyers called the four-year timeframe “arbitrary.”

Here’s what is pending
Among the issues that the hearing will consider is whether, essentially, to put chronic Lyme disease on trial. A motion by Anthem, Inc., the IDSA, and what is termed the “Doctor Defendants” asks the court to have all plaintiffs submit to independent medical examinations, or IMEs, by a Texarkana-based infectious diseases physician.

Their motion, which has been challenged by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, states: “The Lyme Claimants allege that they have suffered debilitating injuries because they have been denied appropriate medical treatments for so-called ‘chronic Lyme disease,’ allegedly due to an unlawful conspiracy among the Defendants to monopolize the treatment of Lyme disease. … Nearly all of the Lyme Claimants allege that they still suffer from the disease today and many claim that they are currently disabled or otherwise unable to work due to their illness. … (W)hether they currently or have ever suffered from Lyme disease, the severity of their symptoms, and whether those symptoms are attributable to Lyme disease or some other cause, are at the heart of this case and were put into controversy by the Lyme Claimants themselves. Well-prepared, peer-reviewed studies have established that as many as 88% of patients who have been told they have ‘chronic Lyme disease’ either do not have – or, in many cases, never have had – Lyme disease in any form.”

To support their assertion, the IDSA defendants cite an article on chronic Lyme disease by Duke University physician of pediatric medicine, Paul Lantos, which cites much of the Doctor Defendants’ research.

And finally…
The hearing will also take up another request related to whether the patients are truly ill and with what.

The IDSA is seeking emails written by them – including any in which the words Lyme appear coupled with antibiotic, literate, chronic, claim*, cover* and den* (presumably meant to refer to claimed/claimant, coverage, denied or denial). Emails with the initials IDSA are also sought.

In its motion, the IDSA asserts: “Defendants’ email requests seek information relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that they ‘suffer debilitating injuries’ and that such injuries impact them on a daily basis, including cognitive deficits, fatigue, and memory loss, resulting in a multitude of alleged harms, including the loss of careers, homes, and the ability to function. … Plaintiffs’ communications about their condition go to the heart of corroborating or refuting their allegations about their conditions and the harms that they allege they have suffered.”

The calendar for the lawsuit lists June 24, 2019 as the start of a jury trial in Torrey v. IDSA et al. Stay tuned.

Mary Beth Pfeiffer, an investigative journalist, is author of the acclaimed book, “Lyme: The First Epidemic of Climate Change.“

Related Posts:
TOUCHED BY LYME: Facebook posts affect Lyme disease lawsuit
Lyme patients file lawsuit against IDSA and insurers over treatment denials
Lyme research bill moves forward in Congress
NEWS: Canada's proposed national strategy for Lyme disease moves forward
Tags : IDSA Lyme guidelines, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Lawsuit against

Posts: 4468 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bartenderbonnie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great post !

This is not about a medical controversy.
This is about medical corruption.

Posts: 1673 | From Florida | Registered: Nov 2016  |  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 must say I find it deeply troubling the insurers' and IDSA' lawyers want access to patients emails.

To me it evokes the disconcerting image of attempting to somehow vilify a rape victim, where she in essence is victimized twice, first by the perp, then by the system which is supposed to protect her.

My heart breaks for these Lyme patients who must now endure this appallingly insensitive scrutiny. Is it me or are these stiff arm tactics? I hope the judge will disallow this particular motion.

Posts: 218 | 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 
Update on RICO lawsuit against IDSA, can be found on this website::

https://www.thefirstepidemic.com/lyme-lawsuit -- (Scroll way far down on the page.)

The link to the most recent court document deals with the independent medical exams. It can be found at the top of the list. (All court filings are listed here in reverse chronological order for our convenience.)

We're all oping and praying ... and waiting to exhale.

Posts: 4468 | 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 
Here is an outstanding updated summary about what's happening in the RICO (racketeering) lawsuit against the IDSA:

https://www.lymedisease.org/lyme-lawsuit-pfeiffer-4/

22 APR 2019
Amended complaint in Lyme lawsuit; battle lines are drawn

By Mary Beth Pfeiffer

A group of sick and disabled Lyme disease patients is hoping to boost its claim, in an amended lawsuit filed in Texas federal court, that a cadre of doctors conspired for two decades to deny them care.

The revised complaint was almost immediately met with a motion to throw it out. The lawsuit fails, the motion said, to show a concerted and concealed conspiracy, and, moreover, “deletes key allegations that undergirded” its initial fraud claim.

Indeed, the revised lawsuit no longer asserts that “large sums” of money passed from insurance companies to physicians in the scheme to limit Lyme treatment to 28 days of antibiotics.

The dueling documents suggest the lawsuit is entering a crucial period that could lead to a trial, set for June — or outright dismissal. Lyme patients have expressed hope that the suit could change medical views on complex late-stage Lyme disease – and how it is treated.

Six doctors, eight insurance companies
Filed by 24 patients, the suit charges six doctors and eight insurers with violating a law normally applied to organized crime: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Represented by three well-known Houston law firms, the patients assert that insurance companies paid key doctors associated with the Infectious Diseases Society of America to develop and enforce care guidelines that sharply limited treatment and drove doctors who treated outside the guidelines out of business.

A judge had previously rejected the claim of fraud under RICO in Torrey v. IDSA, but allowed the patients to submit a new version of the suit, first filed in November of 2017. Lisa Torrey, a Texas resident and Lyme patient, is the lead plaintiff.

The defendants are the Infectious Diseases Society of America, six physicians who variously wrote the IDSA’s Lyme guidelines or helped assure they were enforced, and the insurers Blue Cross And Blue Shield Association, Anthem, Inc., Blue Cross And Blue Shield Of Texas, Aetna Inc., Cigna Corporation, Kaiser Permanente, Inc., United Healthcare Services, Inc., and Unitedhealth Group Incorporated.

The physicians – called IDSA panelists — are Gary P. Wormser, Raymond J. Dattwyler, John J. Halperin, Eugene Shapiro, Leonard Sigal, and Allen Steere. (A seventh, Robert Nadelman, died in 2018.) Wormser and Dattwyler are first and second authors on the guidelines – last revised in 2006 – and Steere did early investigative work when the epidemic emerged in Lyme, Connecticut, in the 1970s.

Fraudulent concealment?
The 58-page lawsuit includes a new section outlining “fraudulent concealment” by the defendants, who, it contends, allegedly knew that it was wrong to deny the existence of chronic Lyme disease and “had a fixed purpose to conceal the wrong.”

As a prime example, the complaint quotes a 1994 letter from Steere: “It has become increasingly apparent that the Lyme disease spirochete, Borrelia burgorferi, may persist in some patients for years.” The defendants’ motion responded, logically, that the letter was “sent to multiple patients,” calling into question that it had been concealed.

In the same vein, the lawsuit charges that the conspirators reported Lyme specialists to medical boards and were paid by insurers to deny claims; the motion responded that there was not a “single” specific example of either.

The motion to dismiss further states that the defendants’ activities have been no secret. If they report doctors and so on, “they do so openly, and Plaintiffs have been aware of these alleged wrongful acts for decades. They cannot, therefore, be a proper basis to invoke fraudulent concealment,” a key legal threshold.

Care denied?
The latest version of the lawsuit is more detailed in its portrait of care denied. It quotes a Blue Cross official as he explained the company’s policy of cutting off payment for antibiotics after six weeks. “It’s an arbitrary number, six times seven is 42, it’s six weeks,” Richard Sanchez said in a 1999 court deposition, “…nothing magical or scientific about it.”

Asked if there was “any medical or scientific justification for that policy, to restrict approval of IV antibiotic treatment”, Sanchez answered with ‘No,’” the suit states.

The revised suit also expands on alleged payments to Sigal, who acknowledged in a 1996 case that he was paid $560 an hour by insurance companies to review – and “almost always deny” — Lyme disease claims. “Dr. Sigal quipped that the money he was paid by insurance companies ‘would pay for a lot of college tuition, actually,’” the suit states.

More conservative
While more expansive at points, the amended complaint is also undoubtedly more conservative.

The first filing said the IDSA panelists “and many others were paid large sums of money by the Insurance Defendants in consulting fees, in expert witness fees, and to review, and deny, insurance coverage claims related to Lyme disease.”

Now it merely states: “There is sufficient evidence to establish that the IDSA panelists were paid by, and influenced by, insurance companies.”

Said the defendants in their motion: “The Amended Complaint alleges no more than that the Insurance Defendants paid consulting fees to the IDSA panelists ‘to influence the IDSA guidelines,’ … and that the Insurance Defendants ‘work with, and compensate, the IDSA Panelists to keep the 28-day standard in place.’” That’s not enough, the motion states, “to allege an antitrust conspiracy.”

The motion also said the case against Steere should be dismissed since the amended lawsuit, unlike the previous one, does not allege he was paid by insurers. Its motion also says the statute of limitations for 21 patients to claim harm had passed.

Differences between two versions
Other differences between the original and revised lawsuit include

The original lawsuit asserted that “from 1997 to 2000, more than 50 physicians” in seven states “were investigated, disciplined or had had their licenses removed” related to Lyme disease care. The amended complaint drops that figure while making much the same argument.
The original filing asserted that “a large number of patients, up to 40 percent, do not respond to short-term antibiotic treatment.” The amended suit puts the figure at “at least 20 percent” — which adds up to about 80,000 patients in 2017.
To the dismay of some in the Lyme community, the suit focuses heavily on the denial of longer courses of antibiotics to patients under the IDSA guidelines, which rigidly hold that 10-to-28-day courses almost always eliminate Lyme infection.

“(C)hronic Lyme disease patients who do not respond to short-term antibiotic treatment, and do not receive long-term antibiotic treatment,” the lawsuit states, “will suffer debilitating symptoms, will be in constant pain, will be unable to function or live a normal life, and will eventually die from Lyme disease.”

Emerging science is undoubtedly mounting to show that standard antibiotics, in particular doxycycline, fail to kill the Lyme spirochete in animal and test-tube experiments. Published research also acknowledges at 10 to 20 percent of early treated patients remain ill under current short-course protocols.

Too much emphasis on long-term antibiotics?
However, Lyme practitioners generally do not see antibiotics as a cure in many late-stage cases, which the suit seems to embrace. Rather, they often use antibiotics in combination with other herbal, pharmaceutical and lifestyle therapies, while calling for more research on treatments.

So far, 195 documents have been filed as the plaintiffs and defendants battle over issues of discovery and medical examinations, still unresolved, to prove the patients have Lyme disease. As of now, a trial is scheduled for June 24 before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III.

A lot could happen before then.

***

Click here to read documents filed in the case, including the lawsuit and assorted motions.



Mary Beth Pfeiffer, an investigative journalist, is the author of “Lyme: The First Epidemic of Climate Change.”

Related Posts:
Lyme patients file lawsuit against IDSA and insurers over treatment denials
NEWS: Drawing lines in Lyme disease battle
Patient lawsuit against IDSA and insurers moves forward in Texas
IDSA lawsuit: Patients may have to undergo independent medical exams

Posts: 4468 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan455
Member
Member # 51881

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dan455     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
https://youtu.be/40EWjpREeXY?t=956

quote:
Originally posted by
Fox5NY:

He wants his lawsuit to open the doors who are suffering from lyme disease because of late detection for them to be able to sue the CDC, lawsuits against the government are hard to win but lee says he'll lyme sufferers all the data from his case to do it...



Posts: 13 | From MI | Registered: Apr 2019  |  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 Dan455:
https://youtu.be/40EWjpREeXY?t=956

quote:
Originally posted by
Fox5NY:

He wants his lawsuit to open the doors who are suffering from lyme disease because of late detection for them to be able to sue the CDC, lawsuits against the government are hard to win but lee says he'll lyme sufferers all the data from his case to do it...



Dan,
You're referring to Dr. Lee's lawsuit which is different from the RICO lawsuit which is the subject of this topic discussion.

Both of these two lawsuits and the motives behind them are valid, but the purpose of the RICO lawsuit is NOT primarily the money. Rather, it is to put a stop to the harm which the IDSA doctors have been doing to Lyme patients by denying them treatment based on their out-dated and dogmatic diagnostic guidelines which have not been up-dated since 2006 .

The reason for including money in the RICO lawsuit is because it is a necessary requirement in order to demonstrate monetary damages or else the case cannot be filed in civil court, I"m pretty sure. (Ask an attorney about this because I'm not 100% sure.)

The main point though is that there are 2 different lawsuits and you are getting them confused in the link which you supplied.
1). Dr.Lee's suit
2) Torrey et al RICO against the IDSA.

Posts: 4468 | 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 
The latest set of court documents in this case was filed on May 17 by the Defendants. They are arguing with the Plaintiffs over who the Expert Witness should be for the required IME (Independent Medical Exams).

In order to keep up with all of the filings as they occur, just click on the original link to the special webpage on TheFirstEpidemic website: https://www.thefirstepidemic.com/lyme-lawsuit -- (Scroll down, way far down)

The newest filings are at the top of the list, with links to the actual court documents.

It's getting interesting now, folks!

Waiting to exhale......

Posts: 4468 | 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