Claimant Failed to Prove his Lyme Disease is Compensable
The appeals panel has reversed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge and has rendered a decision that a claimant’s diagnosis of Lyme Disease was not shown to be compensable under the Act. The appeals panel found that there was no evidence to establish the type of tick to which the claimant was exposed or that the tick or ticks carried the bacteria that causes Lyme disease. The appeal is posted in Texas Division of Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel Decision No. 171882, decided October 10, 2017.
The claimant testified he is a Texas State Trooper and in early July 2015 he was assigned to patrol near the United States/Mexico border to assist Border Patrol Agents with Operation Strong Safety. The claimant testified he was bitten by a tick and has been diagnosed with Lyme disease on July 1, 2016.
Claimant’s treating doctor opined that his exposure to tick bites sustained on his date of injury, brought forth the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi that caused Lyme disease because the claimant’s symptoms after the tick bites improved while on treatment for Lyme disease. The doctor pointed out that the claimant denied previous exposure or tick bites, which further supported her opinion that the tick bites on the date of injury, were the cause of the Lyme disease. The doctor also stated that the mechanism of injury of tick bites is consistent with the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi that causes Lyme disease. Finally, the doctor stated that being bitten by infected ticks is the only way a human is infected, and that Lyme disease is not detectable until four or more months after the injurious exposure and symptoms can take weeks, months, or even longer to appear.
The ALJ relied upon this evidence to conclude that the claimant had sustained a compensable occupational disease. The carrier appealed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the ALJ’s determination. The appeals panel reversed the ALJ’s ruling, writing that the evidence was insufficient to support the Decision.
The evidence in the instant case established the claimant was diagnosed with Lyme disease on July 1, 2016. In evidence is a medical narrative dated April 11, 2017, from (Dr. E). Dr. E opined that the tick bites sustained on (date of injury), brought forth the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi that caused Lyme disease because the claimant’s symptoms after the tick bites improved while on treatment for Lyme disease. Dr. E pointed out that the claimant denied previous exposure or tick bites, which further supported her opinion that the tick bites on (date of injury), were the cause of the Lyme disease. Dr. E stated that the mechanism of injury of tick bites is consistent with the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi that causes Lyme disease. Dr. E further stated that being bitten by infected ticks is the only way a human is infected, and that Lyme disease is not detectable until four or more months after the injurious exposure and symptoms can take weeks, months, or even longer to appear.
However, as in APD 93885, supra, there was no evidence to establish the type of tick to which the claimant was exposed or that the tick or ticks carried the bacteria that causes Lyme disease. Dr. E assumed that because the claimant was bitten by ticks those ticks transmitted Lyme disease. Her opinion merely suggests a bare possibility of how the claimant was exposed to Lyme disease. Accordingly, we reverse the ALJ’s determination that the claimant sustained a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease on July 1, 2016, and we render a new decision that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease on July 1, 2016.
Although it was not cited in the opinion, the decision of the appeals panel is consistent with the decision of the Texas Supreme Court in Schaefer v. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass’n, 612 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. 1980). There, the Court considered a similar claim that presented similar evidence, and concluded that the claimant’s failure to prove that any bacteria was present in the soil where Schaefer worked was “a crucial deficiency in the proof of causation.”
FOLIO
