What struck me about the opinion was that the defendant was a medical doctor! He probably knew he was infected otherwise he would have submitted to a post-coital STD test which is what he was resisting so strongly in the case.
-- Modified on 2/26/2015 3:46:56 PM
Here's what can happen in Illinois if you claim not to have herpes, but your partner ends up with it...
A woman sued a guy she met through "It's Just Lunch." They went on two dates in 2011 and both "affirmed that neither had any sexually transmitted diseases." They had sex and she began experiencing symptoms of Herpes II virus. (HSV-2) She sued him for emotional distress, fraud, misrepresentation and other things. He responded that he had been tested in 2010 and was negative for HSV-2 and attached the 2010 lab results. The trial Court ruled that she could force him to undergo a "visual and manual physical exam, including a discussion of his medical and sexual history" followed by a blood test for the virus, because he had put his medical condition at issue when he submitted his 2010 results. There were other issues raised which will likely be the subject of other appeals. This ruling of the Illinois Appellate Court was issued 2/24/15, and can be viewed at 2014 IL App. (1st.) 133424.
Of course, the opinion doesn't say if they practiced protected sex or what either of them did between his 2010 testing and their 2011 sexual experience...
What struck me about the opinion was that the defendant was a medical doctor! He probably knew he was infected otherwise he would have submitted to a post-coital STD test which is what he was resisting so strongly in the case.
-- Modified on 2/26/2015 3:46:56 PM
Goodwon - you are right again - (and the Firesign Theatre thanks you for your interest.) On another note, it is hard to understand how testing today will relate to their sexual experience in 2011. It could be argued if the defendant doc is HSV-2 positive now, there is no proof he was positive in 2011. This could open up the woman's medical and sexual history to questions about her possible exposure from other sources during the time from 2011 to present. A truly messy situation for all...
Herpes is no big deal. After the first few outbreaks the virus tends to go dormant.
Now if it was HIV then the issue is completely different.
Not sure why they did not get tested before the first fuck.
Not so simple for women. Possible issues for pregnancy and childbirth.
Eom
So actually, here's what can happen if you respond pro-se and/or hire a terrible lawyer, intentionally opening the door to court review of your sexual medical history.