The reasoning behind an appellate court ruling on an alleged medical journal article misrepresentation about treating Lyme disease was discussed in a Fifth Circuit’s decision Thursday. In the case Torrey v. Infectious Diseases Soc’y of Am., the court ruled that the publication of a medical opinion in a peer-reviewed journal cannot form the basis for a misrepresentation claim, regardless of whether the opinion is hotly debated. The court noted that different opinions exist in scientific debates, and it is not the place of the court to arbitrate such disputes. The court also held that specific statements in the medical journal article about chronic Lyme disease were expressions of medical opinions and thus not grounds for liability. Overall, the court ruled that the statements in question were nonactionable medical opinions. The decision was written by Judge Kyle Duncan, joined by Judges Carl Stewart and Edith Jones. The ruling signifies that the alleged misrepresentation claims regarding the medical journal article were not legally sound, and thus, there is no liability for any supposed misrepresentation.