Texas court says clinic had no duty to warn spouse about HIV

The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the Santa Rosa Health Care Corp. bears no liability for not warning a woman that her husband was potentially HIV-positive. To control his hemophilia, Adalberto Balderas received a blood clotting product in 1980 from the San Antonio hospital. The hospital later became aware that the product was contaminated and repeatedly requested Balderas to come in for HIV testing. Balderas never returned to the hospital to be tested. Balderas did eventually test positive at another testing site and sued Santa Rosa for negligent failure to notify and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He has since died, and his wife continued the suit. The Texas AIDS statutes limit the number of people to whom an HIV diagnosis can be disclosed and wives are included; however, since Balderas was never tested, the hospital would be violating the law for disclosing an unconfirmed infection.     

Court lifts injunction barring lessons about sex, HIV

A Florida appeals court ruled that St. Bartholomew Catholic School cannot excuse the children of Peter and Bernadette Anderson from attending family life courses that are mandatory for all school attendees. The parents objected to their children's participation, and the school excused them for a year, giving them another year without participating when they threatened legal action. The appeals panel found that such a contract between the school and the parents was for personal services and not enforceable by an injunction.     

Hospital not obligated to warn man about spouse's infection

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld a trial judge's ruling that a hospital is not obligated to inform a person that his estranged spouse tested positive for HIV. A man, known as N.O.L., sued St. Elizabeth's hospital for negligent infliction of emotional distress after discovering that his wife, F.L., tested HIV-positive while under the care of a District-run hospital. The trial judge ruled that the hospital owed no duty to N.O.L. to disclose F.L.'s HIV status without her written consent or a court order.     

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review HIV confidentiality issue

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will rule on whether Louis Aiello's HIV infection is admissible as evidence to defend against future damage claims in personal injury lawsuits. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority argued that rider Louis Aiello, who injured his leg on a stairwell, should not have been awarded the full $374,100 because he is HIV-positive and will therefore not have a normal life span. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that the Common Pleas Court judge should have allowed information about Aiello's HIV status to be presented. The appeals court remanded the case for retrial solely for damages. Subsequently, Aiello's attorney persuaded the State Supreme Court to consider the admissibility of that evidence. Case briefs will be submitted in February 1998.     

艾滋病流行区临床医生对PITC服务知晓情况分析

目的：了解艾滋病流行区临床医生对艾滋病相关知识及主动提供艾滋病检测咨询服务（PITC）的知晓情况,为推进该区开展PITC工作进程提供参考。方法：随机抽取某市综合医院医生共180名,采用自行设计问卷进行调查。结果：有效应答率91．1％（164／180）。临床医生对艾滋病一般知识和防控策略知晓率多在85％以上,但了解我国艾滋病流行形势者不及52．0％,有15．9oA的医生未认知发现感染者对控制艾滋病疫情的重要性。对于发现HIV感染者的方法,164名医生中,有153人（93．3％）知晓常规术前检测,但知晓VCT和PITC者分别仅42人和5人。医生们普遍意识到医疗机构是发现HIV感染者／艾滋病病人的重要窗口,157人（95．7％）认为PITC服务非常有必要。对于该地推行PITC服务目前可能面临的困难,医生们认为主要是相关知识与技能不足、检测费用加重患者就医负担、患者对感染风险认知不足和对艾滋病感染的歧视、医生缺少时间等。结论：该地临床医生对艾滋病知识的了解不够深入,PITC知识与技能缺乏,与艾滋病防治需求不相适应。PITC服务是流行区发现感染者必不可少的重要手段,该地应积极创造条件包括加强医务人员艾滋病诊疗和PITC知识与操作技能的培训、加大大众宣传教育力度以及争取相关配套政策的支持等以推进PITC服务。     

Supreme Court to review case arising from HIV exposure

The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing whether the military may dismiss an Air Force officer who had unprotected sex with two women without telling them his HIV status. Major James T. Goldsmith tested positive in 1988 and was ordered to avoid sexual intercourse unless he informed his partners of his HIV status. Goldsmith was also ordered to use condoms every time he had intercourse. He disobeyed both orders by having unprotected sex with one woman in 1988 and another in 1993. Both women have tested negative. Goldsmith was convicted of willful disobedience of orders, assault with a means likely to inflict death or grievous bodily harm, and assault consummated by battery. He was sentenced to 6 years in confinement and ordered to forfeit his pay for 72 months.     

职业病诊断与鉴定举证责任若干问题探讨

目的探讨对职业病诊断与鉴定举证责任的理解和其有待完善的法律问题。方法依据职业卫生法律法规规定,借鉴民事诉讼证据规则,对诊断与鉴定举证责任问题进行分析讨论。结果劳动者只要承担对特别要件事实的举证责任,用人单位承担一般要件事实的举证责任。结论正确理解职业病诊断与鉴定举证责任,利于诊断工作的开展。     

HIV groups urge Court to take broad view of disability

An amicus brief filed by 22 disability-rights and HIV groups cautions the Supreme Court against limiting its interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The brief focuses on a case, Albertson's Inc. v Kirkingburg, involving a truck driver who was fired because of his monocular vision. Kirkingburg is able to hold a job and perform normal activities, but is substantially limited by the manner in which he sees because of his monocular vision. The brief attempts to explain why some impairments, such as HIV or loss of a limb, always meet the statutory definition of disability, while other impairments must be examined more closely. The brief also states that ADA claims should focus on the conduct and motivation of the defendant, not the extent of the plaintiff's disability.     

Court considers dentist's claim that ADA doesn't apply to HIV

Oral arguments have begun in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of dentist Randon Bragdon who is charged with violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Bragdon refused to treat HIV-positive patient Sidney Abbott. Ms. Abbott filed a complaint against Bragdon with the Maine Human Rights Commission. The ADA prohibits disability-based discrimination in public accommodations. A U.S. District judge in Maine rejected Bragdon's argument that a patient with HIV infection poses a direct threat to a health care provider's health and safety. Bragdon appealed, arguing that Abbot should not be entitled to ADA protection because reproduction is not a major life activity under the law. Bragdon also argues that the standard universal precautions were not enough for him to feel secure. A decision in this case is expected in March 1997.     

Court says worker with HIV was not forced to quit

A divided Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a former Denny's restaurant employee who claimed her supervisor induced her to quit when she revealed she was HIV-positive. The seven judges in the majority found that Jane Doe left of her own free will rather than harm the business. The three-judge minority said the employer raised the possibility of customer boycotts and intolerable working conditions. The defense contends that Jane Doe voluntarily agreed to be laid off and was not threatened in any way. The dissenting judges stated that Doe was given no alternative but to accept terminating her employment and was treated without regard or support. The minority wrote that Denny's restaurant used Doe's fear of public reaction and desire for privacy to coerce her into leaving voluntarily.     

Court sees no basis to void policy issued to man with HIV

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that Protective Life Insurance Company cannot rescind a policy if it failed to detect fraud within a two-year contestability period. The court ruled that the insurer should have exercised reasonable diligence when conducting the medical exam of Dennis J. Sullivan one year after he tested positive for HIV-antibodies. Sullivan lied about his health on the insurance application and omitted the names of the doctors who had been treating him for HIV. Sullivan authorized the Protective Life Insurance Company to conduct HIV testing but the company never did so. A Federal judge granted judgement in favor of the insurer. After Sullivan's death, litigation continued. In 1996, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the judge's ruling was premature due to ambiguity in the State law, traced back to 1890, and asked the State Supreme Judicial Court to intervene. The case is being returned to the 1st Circuit for a decision.