John B. v. Superior Court Of Los Angeles County

137 P.3d 153 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

W and H met in September 1998 and began dating shortly thereafter. The couple became engaged in late 1999 and were married in July 2000. During this period, H represented to W that he was healthy, disease-free, and monogamous. Indeed, it was H who insisted that the couple stop using condoms during intercourse. Based on H's representations, W complied with his demand to engage in unprotected sex. In September 2000, however, W began to suffer from exhaustion and high fevers. On October 1, 2000, W learned that she had tested positive for HIV. She was advised to undergo a second test and to have her husband tested as well. The second test confirmed that W was HIV positive. H, too, was determined to be HIV positive. H's doctor told W that she had “brought the HIV into the marriage.” The doctor prescribed medications for H that made his viral load virtually undetectable. W, on the other hand, was not offered treatment; she was informed that she had “had the illness for a long time.” H admitted to W that he had had sexual relations with men before their marriage. W alleges that H became infected with HIV first, as a result of engaging in unprotected sex with multiple men before and during their marriage, and that he then knowingly or negligently transmitted the virus to her. H, who now has full-blown AIDS, alleges in his answer that W infected him and offers as proof a negative HIV test conducted in connection with his application for life insurance on August 17, 2000, six weeks before W discovered she was infected with HIV. The issue is simply the extent to which W may inquire into H's medical records and sexual conduct in order to confirm or refute her allegations that H knowingly or negligently infected her with HIV. The court balance W's right to discover relevant evidence against H's right to privacy. After balancing these interests, the court overruled H's objections and authorized broad discovery into H's medical records as well as his sexual history over the past 10 years. The Court of Appeal granted H's petition for a writ of mandate to the extent the discovery sought the identities of H's previous sexual partners and admissions concerning his “lifestyle,” but otherwise denied relief. W appealed. H denies that he can be held liable if the evidence shows only that he had constructive knowledge he was infected with HIV. He concludes that discovery should be limited to those requests aimed at uncovering whether he had actual knowledge that he was infected with HIV.