Comments on: “Woman Wins $1.5M Award in STD Transmission Case”

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:56:20 +0000

I wonder, will this woman now warn every man she gets involved with that she may be the last woman they can sleep without incurring financial obligations?

By: Sella Turcica

Sella Turcica — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:14:22 +0000

When I first glanced at the entry I conflated the words “plaintiff” and “Muscatine” so I read it as:

“A Mastiff said her former boyfriend….”

By: thufir_hawat

thufir_hawat — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:35:23 +0000

Or. . . it is a case of bad facts making bad law.

The Dentist, typical of his profession, was a bad litigant and worse witness. As happens with juries, when looking for someone to blame they picked the bigger jerk. Guess who that was?

Not a correct decision, imho, but not unheard of: when it appears that the jury is looking for a bad guy, make certain that you are not it.

By: Watrol Guy

Watrol Guy — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:32:32 +0000

Absolutely incredible case. How the victim was able to proof her previous medical history must have been explored in the court. It is good to see more people becoming educated on STD with the stats increasing.

By: cc

cc — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:22:18 +0000

The real issue here is the very low burden of proof needed for civil cases – difficult to tell from the write up, but did she have proof she didn’t have HPV prior to meeting him? Its a very common infection in her age group and not necessarily a routine screening test. In order to prove he gave her the virus I, as a juror, would want proof that he had it and knew, she didn’t have it and had test proof of that, and then tested positive after contact with him and some reasonable belief in her exclusivity with him during that time. Otherwise this is very loose attribution of cause since she could have easily had this infection in an asymptomatic form (women and men both have asymptomatic infections) long prior to ever meeting him. Saying his questioning her about HPV is weird (in the proceeding) isn’t really – he’s a dentist, the write up alleges non intercourse sexual contact, so he may be concerned for his own health about HPV in her b/c he knows what the infection can do. I know reasonable doubt isn’t the burden in these cases, but they maybe should be if million dollar verdicts are involved. There is certainly, based on the write up, lots of reasons to doubt.

Now, the better and more plausible case would have been why this guy is dating his patients. That is a no no.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:39:30 +0000

DAV: No, the point of suits like this is to ensure that no one, anywhere, ever has sex. People are a cancer on the earth, doncha know. Didn’t you get the memo? Not even the newspaper?

By: DAV

DAV — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:37:22 +0000

“Isn’t it the point that she asked and he lied?”

Well, according to the article: “Evans denied having HPV and Rossiter was not able to prove he actually knew he was infected.”

Considering the fact that the CDC says it’s a common virus that’s often benign — and even when it’s not, the symptoms can be mild to the point someone with it would be unaware of its nature — she was remiss in not insisting on a complete examination to ensure Rossiter’s clean bill of health.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm#what

“Most men who get HPV (of any type) never develop any symptoms or health problems.”

Given that, does it mean you should have a medical education before attempting to engage in sex?

By: Matt H.

Matt H. — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:47:49 +0000

Isn’t it the point that she asked and he lied? It’s analogous to the rule that a physician need not inform a patient that he has not performed a planned surgical procedure for twenty years but if asked about his/her experience must answer truthfully.

By: Marc J. Randazza

Marc J. Randazza — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:03:31 +0000

Touche!

By: Dennis

Dennis — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:41:34 +0000

Yep. You play, you pay.