A Lawsuit on Behalf of Lyme Disease Patients

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. You can find these new and other documents on Torrey v. IDSA here.

June 1, 2021 CASE UPDATE: Pending approval by the court, TORREY v. IDSA is now an anti-trust lawsuit against a single defendant: The Infectious Diseases Society of America. Both sides have agreed to an order that dismisses claims against the IDSA under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) but not under the Sherman Act. Moreover, the order would dismiss all claims — RICO and anti-trust — against six physician-panelists who greatly influenced Lyme disease care: Raymond J. Dattwyler, John J. Halperin, Eugene D. Shapiro, Leonard H. Sigal, Allen C. Steere and Gary P. Wormser.

Should the lawsuit survive a pending defense motion to dismiss it, it would proceed on the plaintiffs’ assertions that the IDSA attempted to or did monopolize the Lyme treatment market, in violation of the Sherman Act. The Torrey plaintiffs have asserted: “The IDSA guidelines are treated as mandatory requirements by the IDSA…by: (1) denying the existence of chronic Lyme disease, (2) condemning the use of long-term antibiotics, (3) allowing doctors who treat chronic Lyme patients to be sanctioned by medical boards, and (4) using the guidelines as a basis to deny insurance coverage of chronic Lyme treatments. The power of the IDSA…restrains trade, therefore, the IDSA guidelines have significantly reduced the Lyme treatment market …[and its conducts is] sufficiently commercial for Sherman Act purposes.” Eight insurance companies charged in the lawsuit settled previously. The proposed order, filed April 22, 2021, awaits a signature by U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Schrader III. — Note: This filing came before my last update but only just came to my attention. Apologies. MBP

April 28, 2021 CASE UPDATE: TORREY v. IDSA et al. UPDATE: A hearing was held in federal court April 23 on a motion by the IDSA side for summary judgment -- namely for dismissal of the case. The defendants say that the Torrey side has no evidence to back its claims that the defendants conspired with insurance companies to deny care to Lyme disease patients. I have posted five new documents on my website, including the motion to dismiss, the response, and documents from the hearing. Here is an excerpt from the IDSA argument to dismiss: “…Plaintiffs admitted that they have no evidence of the large consulting fees that they alleged the Insurance Defendants paid to the Doctors and that formed the foundation of their RICO and antitrust claims. …While Plaintiffs attempt to cling to their antitrust claims, those claims rest on the same alleged payments that Plaintiffs finally acknowledge were not made. They should be dismissed with prejudice.” The Torrey side has responded with a detailed rebuttal that claims, among other things, "IDSA and IDSA Panelists destroyed or failed to produce relevant documents that were in their possession establishing the large consulting fees paid to the IDSA Panelists from health insurance companies." It concludes, "The evidence in this case establishes that the IDSA continues to commit overt acts that continue the antitrust violations." See the motion, response and hearing documents on my Read the Court Filings page. — MBP

CASE UPDATE: On Jan. 7, 2021, the plaintiffs in Torrey v. IDSA filed an amended complaint. The defendants now include the IDSA and Drs. Wormser, Dattwyler, Shapiro, Halperin, Sigel and Steere. The eight insurance company defendants settled previously. The remaining defendants filed a motion on Jan. 21, 2021, to dismiss the amended complaint “or, in the alternative, to strike plaintiffs’ new misrepresentation claims”. The new documents and others can be accessed on my Read the Court Filings page. — MBP

CASE UPDATE: As of November 2020, all eight insurance companies have settled in Torrey v. IDSA et al. No details are known on the settlements, which have not been made available in public documents. However, a guardian has been named to represent four minors who are plaintiffs. The guardian's job is to review the adequacy of the settlement and how it is distributed. Remaining defendants include six physician-researchers (the seventh, Robert Nadelman, has passed away) and the IDSA. A trial in the case is tentatively set for September 2021. Important court documents can be accessed on my Read the Court Filings page. — MBP

This page will report on developments in Torrey et al v. Infectious Diseases Society of America et al, a lawsuit filed in 2017 on behalf of Lyme disease patients who say they have been denied care and harmed under existing insurance and medical protocols. The litigation is proceeding in U.S. District Court in Texarkana, Texas. Read Mary Beth's Huffington Post article on the lawsuit, which has been filed against the IDSA, six physician researchers and eight insurance companies.

A copy of the lawsuit can be accessed here.