A Lawsuit on Behalf of Lyme Disease Patients

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.

Articles on Torrey et al:

APRIL 22, 2019: LYMEDISEASE.ORG

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....

CONTINUE THE ARTICLE HERE

MARCH 21, 2019: LYMEDISEASE.ORG

IDSA lawsuit: Patients may have to undergo independent medical exams

By Mary Beth Pfeiffer

Patients who are suing over alleged denial of care for long-standing Lyme disease may have to submit to medical examination to prove their conditions, a federal judge ruled in a hearing in Texarkana, Texas, federal court. The ruling hits on a pivotal issue in the potentially groundbreaking case in which 25 living patients and the families of three who have died claim the Infectious Diseases Society of America and six physician-researchers conspired with eight insurance companies to limit Lyme disease treatment.

CONTINUE THE ARTICLE HERE

Feb. 25, 2019: LYMEDISEASE.ORG

Patient lawsuit against IDSA and insurers moves forward in Texas

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). ...

continue the article here

Dec. 7, 2017: HUFFINGTON POST

10 points about suing the architects of Lyme policy-as a task force meets to review it

BY Mary Beth Pfeiffer

For nearly a generation, a small group of physician-researchers has directed how Lyme disease is diagnosed and treated in the United States, Europe and, as the disease spreads, Canada and Australia too. As a result, US insurance companies routinely refuse to pay for antibiotic treatments longer than 28 days. Doctors have been punished for prescribing them. Patients have been told their lingering problems are psychological or they have other sickness.

Now, a lawsuit asserts that the design and implementation of Lyme disease care–as outlined in the treatment guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America—is rooted in corruption. It asserts that key architects of Lyme policy, naming seven physician-researchers, took money from and worked with insurers to develop guidelines that allowed claims to be denied. The conspiracy involved efforts to belittle the legitimate complaints of patients, the suit asserts, and to stifle competition from doctors who did not follow the IDSA guidelines, which the suit terms “a predatory device.” ...