I think they are going to have a hard time winning this case:
from the govt article linked below:
"However, as stated above, 10% to 100% of domestic rats and 50% to 100% of wild rats carry
S. moniliformis, and a known bite causes infection approximately 10% of the time.
"
the fact that the rat tested positive for the bacteria is almost meaningless, since up to 100% of all wild and domestic rats carry it.
there are other animals that carry this bacteria as well.
I don't understand how they come up with a 10% rate of infection from known rat bites, that seems absurdly high (in the govt article linked below)
if that were true, then we would ALL pretty much know someone who has been infected with rat bite fever. Think of how many of us have been bitten by a rat, even just once.
Heck think of all the rats we have, and the times we let our rats drink from the same cup we do, etc. There was an outbreak of this illness among people who drank milk that had been contaminated by the rats carrying the bacteria.
if you figure at least 10% of our rats are carriers... well I'm not very good at math, I admit that, but you'd think we'd know a lot more ppl who had been infected if the rate was as high as this gov't article supposes it is.
Since it's very hard to test for, anyone who has been bitten by a rat and gets sick afterward, should #1 tell their doctor about their exposure to rats and #2 make sure to be treated with antibiotics.
esp if you have a fever, rash, and joint pain.
a govt' article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797630/
a info sheet from a lab about rat bite fever:
http://www.criver.com/files/pdfs/infectious-agents/rm_ld_r_streptobacillus_moniliformis.aspx