Doctors already have to be careful about what they diagnose, but also what they ignore. But can schools also be sued for Lyme disease?
We already knew that hospitals and doctors who rely too heavily on serological tests can be sued and ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages. There have also been lawsuits in Europe involving the manufacturers of serological tests because doctors were unable to diagnose the disease in time. Thus, in the former published US cases, patients who died of pericarditis and myocarditis, and in the latter cases, European patients who suffered permanent damage, were able to receive compensation.
But now workplace risks also count, and it is not foresters or soldiers who have taken action.
A TEACHER sued his school because he believed he had contracted Lyme disease there. After starting work in 2019, he noticed that there were mice in the classroom and common areas, and that there was mouse droppings. He financed the investigation himself. He believes he contracted Lyme disease from ticks “falling off” the mice, and spent more than 25 million forints on treatment.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to treat Lyme disease and its potential risks at source? Shouldn’t workers exposed to occupational risks be screened? Shouldn’t we consider that at least one in five people have symptoms caused by Lyme disease? After all, this is the seroprevalence in Central Europe, meaning that one in five people have already encountered the pathogen, and no evidence of spontaneous recovery has yet been found.
Another provocative question: who is responsible for blood donors, among whom seroprevalence ranges from 3 to 7%, and how many cases of Lyme disease are they responsible for?
https://www.thecooldown.com/outdoors/lyme-disease-mouse-infestation-school/
