TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162
posted
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
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162
posted
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: 4563 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
(breaking up the post for easier reading for many here)
[ 10-08-2019, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: Robin123 ]
Posts: 61 | From Lees Summit, MO | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
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: 61 | From Lees Summit, MO | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162
posted
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:
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: 4563 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162
posted
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 *** )
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: 4563 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162
posted
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: 4563 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177
posted
Update;
The trial was set for 2/22/2020. It will now have to be rescheduled. Both sides have agreed to a hold - there is currently an impasse over discovery of documents requested by plaintiff's (Torrey).
posted
I can see the reasoning here - the plaintiffs must be allowed to enter their documents into the record, since the IDSA's plan for medical eval will not work.
Posts: 13116 | From San Francisco | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177
posted
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!
On Tuesday before Thanksgiving, two documents were filed electronically in the case of TORREY vs IDSA.
The Plaintiffs and the Defendants have been meeting with mediator David Folsom, a retired judge from Texas, in an effort to settle.
The 1st document filed electronically states that Kaiser Permanente (one of 8 insurance companies Defendants named in the suit) has SETTLED with the Plaintiffs and is no longer part of the suit.
The terms / amount of the settlement is unknown but this encouraging.
The 2nd document filed electronically states that the rest of the TORREY case mediation has been suspended with the IDSA, 6 Doctors, and the remaining 7 insurance companies. Theses parties still must work out issues of discovery/provisions of documents. The suit continues.
Posts: 2977 | From Florida | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177
posted
Repeating
Kaiser Permenente has settled with Plaintiff's !!!!
Mary Beth Pfeiffer; "We will likely never know the terms of the settlement with Kaiser Permenente in the Torrey vs IDSA case. That's disturbing since it should warm insurers DONT DENY LYME CARE. Plaintiff's need compensation and the public needs information."
Posts: 2977 | From Florida | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
Ann-Ohio
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 44364
posted
"December 18, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 265 Order granting #264 Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Stay of the Case.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the stay of the case shall be extended up through and including February 14, 2020, with the exceptions of:
1) third party document discovery, as ordered in the Courts initial stay of the case, and
2) a scheduling conference to be scheduled, as set forth below.
It isfurther ORDERED that the parties shall submit a Joint Report to the Court by January 31, 2020.
The Joint Report shall include the parties agreements and/or differences concerning the case schedule, the amount of time necessary to finish discovery and trial timing and length.
The Court SETS a scheduling conference for February 5, 2020 at 10 a.m. in Texarkana,Texas
to take up the matters addressed in the Joint Report so that a case schedule can be put inplace.
Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 12/18/19. (lfs, ) (lfs, )."
-------------------- Ann-OH Posts: 1589 | From Ohio | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
Ann-Ohio
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 44364
posted
Sometimes legal stuff is hard to read, so I split it up. Helps a little...
-------------------- Ann-OH Posts: 1589 | From Ohio | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177
Blue Cross and Blue Shield are ready to settle! This will make the 2nd insurance company to settle with terms sealed. WE NEED TRANSPARENCY AND FULL DISCLOSURE !!!!!!
A confidential settlement agreement is in place which prohibits either party from discussing the nature of the settlements.
5 Insurance companies remain in Lawsuit; Anthem Inc Aetna Inc United Heathcare Services United Heath Group Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association
6 MD's remain in Lawsuit; Dr Gary Wormser Dr Raymond Dattwyler Dr Eugene Shapiro Dr John Halperin Dr Leopard Sigal Dr Allen Steere Dr Robert Nadelman (deceased)
Lawsuit trial to start April 2021. Trial records are public records, which would then be able to be accessed by anyone!!!!
Feb 18,2020. Torrey apposes IDSA substitute MD for exams; Asks court to deny Dr Goodman as medical examiner due to his fellowship in IDSA and his expertise in Elbola, not Lyme Disease.
posted
I'm more than a little confused on this. I guess because in General Support I see that Ann Lee posted a link for Resources for Disability, Insurance, Dealing with HMOs and when you click on this link you see a post from minoucat with other resources/links and one of those is: Kaiser and Lyme Disease, with another link to Kaiser papers or something. Is Kaiser the same Permanente one and the same and if so why is this a resource for disability here? Im so confused. Posts: 290 | From ohio | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ann-Ohio
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 44364
posted
Hi Spookydew, I didn't see a post by "Ann Lee" on this topic. I think I am the only Ann on this one.
Were you referencing another topic?
-------------------- Ann-OH Posts: 1589 | From Ohio | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Under General Support Ann Lee posted: Financial Help and other information. This take me to minoucat
Hi Ann, I guess Im back seeking answers. I remember you but there are many many I don't see here now.
Posts: 290 | From ohio | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean under general support Ann Lee posted:
Financial Help and other information. Then this
take me to a long list of resources and one of
them is -
a link for Resources for Disability, Insurance,
Dealing with HMOs and when you click on this link
you see a post from minoucat with other
resources/links and one of those is:
Kaiser and Lyme Disease, with another link to
Kaiser papers or something. Is Kaiser the same
Permanente one and the same and if so why is this
a resource for disability here?
Whew, that wore me out.
Posts: 290 | From ohio | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177
posted
Update;
March 3, 2020
Anthem Insurance becomes the 4th insure to settle lawsuit. 4 insures remain. IDSA remain. 6 Doctors remain.
Posts: 2977 | From Florida | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177
posted
BREAKING NEWS !!!!!
ALL 8 INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANTS HAVE SETTLED In the "Torrey vs Infectious Disease Society (IDSA) and Insurance Company Defendants.
United Healthcare Services Inc United Healthcare Services Kaiser Permanente Cigna Corporation Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas Anthem Inc Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Aetna
Settlements awards to the plantiff's to be recieved soon but will remain undisclosed.
The trial will resume againest the IDSA panelists. Trial date set for September 2021.
As of now, all 8 insurance companies have settled a secret out-of-court settlement with plaintiffs.
IDSA docs look to have their lawsuit dropped by judge. They allege plaintiff’s falsely accuse them of large payouts from insurance companies to deny Lyme treatment.
The platiff’s allege IDSA docs have destroyed money and paper trail of incriminating large payouts from insurance companies.
Therefore the RICO charges have been dropped by lawsuit but will proceed under the Sherman Act.
Posts: 2977 | From Florida | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177
posted
HEARTBREAKING NEWS ❤️
Torrey v. IDSA update;
Federal Court Dismisses Lyme Lawsuit Against IDSA (Infectious Diseases of America)
The ruling judge writes; “Plaintiffs have not plead claims for relief that are plausible on their face.”
What this means in layman terms is that the Plaintiffs did not prove the IDSA had unjustly acted to deny care to Lyme patients.
Hard to make sense of this ruling as ALL 8 Insurance Companies named in the same lawsuit, settled their lawsuits out-of -court with settlements and non-disclosure acts (NDA). The Insurance companies were denying Lyme patients medical treatments based on the IDSA guidelines for the treatment of Lyme disease. Crazy !!!!!!!!!!!!!,
Plaintiffs attorneys are not giving up! Plaintiffs attorneys will be filing an appeal to overturn the dismissal. 💚
Ann-Ohio
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 44364
posted
I am not thrilled that they filed in Texas. The appeal will go through to a different court -still Texas, though.
"From journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer on Facebook:
Torrey v. IDSA update: I am saddened to report that the lawsuit on behalf Lyme disease patients has been dismissed in federal court in Texas.
Below is an excerpt from the court’s recent ruling dismissing the claim that IDSA had violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act; the court had earlier dismissed the claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The excerpt sums up the case outcome. In the ultimate ruling, which was just unsealed, the judge wrote these fateful words: “…Plaintiffs have not pled claims for relief that are plausible on their face…”
In other words, a case had not been made that the Infectious Diseases Society of America had unjustly acted to deny care to Lyme disease patients.
On a positive note, I am told that an appeal will be filed to overturn the dismissal. This is an indication that the attorneys, who are working without pay, believe the case has merit and promise.
After all, eight insurance companies named as defendants settled the lawsuit.
The appeal will take at least a year to be heard, perhaps two. I know many people had great faith in this lawsuit. I am sorry to dash hopes for legal redress."
-------------------- Ann-OH Posts: 1589 | From Ohio | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
Rumigirl
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15091
posted
It's appalling!! I remember what Willy Bergdorfer said that was in Under Our Skin, (I'm paraphrasing): The same people have taken all the money for Lyme research for 30 years and have produced nothing. Shamefull.
Now it's a lot longer than 30 years.
Which doesn't even speak to all the money they've taken over decades to fight Lyme patients for insurance companies.
I have plenty more to say on this, but won't waste my breath right now. I'd be preaching to the choir as usual.
Oh, and about Texas, yeah, perhaps it isn't the best state for this. But Lisa Torrey, the main patient behind this, in terms of organizing it, lives in Texas.
Posts: 3771 | From around | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
hiker53
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 6046
posted
-------------------- Hiker53
"God is light. In Him there is no darkness." 1John 1:5 Posts: 8885 | From Illinois | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162
posted
Take heart. This might not be the end of the story yet because the verdict is being appealed by the lawyers who are working without pay because they believe that there is merit in this case.
Below is quoted material which I am re-posting verbatim, taken from a special webpage devoted to this lawsuit.
"Sept. 29, 2021 UPDATE: I am saddened to report that the lawsuit on behalf Lyme disease patients has been dismissed in federal court in Texas.
"The court dismissed the second of two claims — that IDSA had violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act; the court had earlier dismissed the claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
"In the ultimate ruling, which was just unsealed, the judge wrote these fateful words: "...Plaintiffs have not pled claims for relief that are plausible on their face..." In other words, a case had not been made that the Infectious Diseases Society of America had unjustly acted to deny care to Lyme disease patients.
"On a positive note, I am told that an appeal will be filed to overturn the dismissal.
"This is an indication that the attorneys, who are working without pay, believe the case has merit and promise.
"After all, eight insurance companies named as defendants settled the lawsuit.
"The appeal will take at least a year to be heard, perhaps two. I know many people had great faith in this lawsuit. I am sorry to dash hopes for legal redress.
"But there are other developments -- in the research, advocacy and governmental arena -- that should give some solace.
Bartenderbonnie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 49177
posted
Well it’s been a long long journey.
The latest ruling in trying to hold the IDSA Doctors responsible for the faulty and deadly Lyme guidelines, has ruled in favor of the IDSA defendants.
The Appeals Court ruled “ The panel ruled that the IDSA’s statements in medical journals were considered MEDICAL OPINIONS rather than factual representations. The court emphasized that expressing an opinion, even if disputed, does not make the IDSA legally liable.”
“What exactly is required to have proof of chronic infection?
A group of infectious disease experts were merely giving their medical opinion, when they expressed doubts that Lyme disease can persist after it is treated with antibiotics.
Considering there is extensive evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that Borrelia, Babesia and Bartonella can persist after 'standard antibiotic/anti-infective treatments' (m publications alone have multiple references on the subject), is the only reason these infectious disease phsicians don't believe it is because there has not been a treatment trial of persister drugs like dapsone and biofilm agents?
We need treatment trials for CLD, since the overwhelming amount of scientific studies showing persistence do not appear to be enough!”
Agree
Posts: 2977 | From Florida | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[confused]](graemlins/confused.gif)
![[cussing]](graemlins/cussing.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic