Subject: AIDS Victim's Parents Can Sue His Infected Partner, Judge Rules Date: Published: 11/18/92 (165 lines) Source: Wall Street Journal. Copyright Dow Jones & Co. Inc. Law -- Legal Beat: AIDS Victim's Parents Can Sue His Infected Partner, Judge Rules ---- By Wade Lambert and Junda Woo Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal A New York state judge ruled that the parents of a man who died of AIDS can sue their son's longtime sex partner for allegedly giving him the disease. The lawsuit is one of the first in which an HIV-infected person has been accused under a wrongfuldeath law of passing on the virus that causes AIDS. But attorneys say more such suits are likely as the survivors of AIDS victims become aware that they may have grounds to litigate. Suits by the AIDS victims themselves against sex partners are already on the rise, lawyers say, but the plaintiffs face the possibility that they may die before their cases are resolved. In the New York case, the parents of Anthony Blanco, who died in September 1990, accused John Sullivan, their son's lover of 15 years, of fraudulently and negligently concealing that he was HIV-positive. Mr. Sullivan said in court documents that he didn't learn that he was infected with the virus until a year before his partner's death. He also said in court documents that Mr. Blanco was an intravenous drug abuser before the two men met, and that Mr. Blanco was sexually promiscuous during their relationship. Mr. Sullivan argued that the suit should be dismissed because the parents, Mamie and Joseph Blanco, wouldn't be able to prove that Mr. Sullivan transmitted the virus to their son. State Judge Louis Sangiorgio didn't rule on the merits of the case, but he said the suit should be allowed to proceed. The judge said no previous court in the state has ruled on whether HIV transmission could fall under the wrongful-death statute, which allows survivors to sue for damages. But Judge Sangiorgio said judges in other cases have allowed suits by sex partners "for wrongful transmissions of sexually transmitted diseases on theories of either fraud or negligence." Because Mr. Blanco could have sued his partner for damages for transmission of HIV, the surviving parents can sue for wrongful death, Judge Sangiorgio ruled Larry Gostin, a health law professor at Harvard University, said courts have tended to rule that HIV-infected people have a legal obligation to disclose their health status to partners. "If the person knew and didn't disclose the HIV status to the partner, most courts are finding that negligence occurred, and damages are often awarded" to the partner, Prof. Gostin said. But he said proving HIV transmission is difficult. The plaintiff, for instance, typically would have to show that he or she was monogamous and didn't have any other possible exposure to the virus. Prof. Gostin said a plaintiff could also present evidence that the defendant's HIV was genetically similar to the plaintiff's. Prof. Gostin and advocates of HIV carriers' rights warned that such cases may actually hurt public-policy efforts to fight the transmission of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. "The court is punishing you for knowing and not telling, but the court won't punish you for not knowing," Prof. Gostin said. Evan Wolfson, an attorney with Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, which handles gay-rights and HIV-rights cases, said such cases "distract from the majority of cases of AIDS in which people don't know that they are infected." Mr. Wolfson, who didn't work on the Blanco case, said it should have been dismissed as groundless. "How can they prove that the survivor infected the deceased? There is no evidence to support that claim but conjecture," he said. Mr. Wolfson also said the Blanco case is an example of families seeking to punish partners of homosexual sons. "The deceased made no claim against his lover, but the family is turning around and using it as a weapon to get the money," he said. Mr. Blanco left his estate to Mr. Sullivan, another matter that is being challenged by his parents. Bernadette Panzella, the attorney for the Blancos, said she was pleased with the judge's ruling but added, "This is not going to be easy because we don't know enough about AIDS. It is a worthwhile case in my opinion because whenever anyone has acted irresponsibly they have to be made to be held responsible." Mr. Sullivan's attorney didn't return a call seeking comment. (Blanco vs. Sullivan, New York State Supreme Court, Staten Island) --- SAFE ZONES for the homeless are ordered in Miami case. Federal District Judge C. Clyde Atkins told the city to provide at least two public areas in which the homeless can't be arrested for merely sleeping, eating, bathing and congregating. The unusual ruling comes in a class-action lawsuit brought in 1988 on behalf of Miami's approximately 6,000 homeless people. "The city's practice of arresting homeless individuals for performing essential, life-sustaining acts in public when they have absolutely no place to go effectively infringes on their fundamental right to travel," the court said. The arrests also are cruel and unusual, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and interfere with due-process rights of homeless people, the court said. The judge didn't specify the location or size of the "safe zones," although he said they should be near food programs, health clinics and other services. Judge Atkins told the city and the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the homeless, to meet within two weeks to come up with suggested safe zones. Advocates for the homeless said most similar cases have turned on the fundamental right to shelter, rather than on the Eighth Amendment or on the right to travel. "This case is a departure in that it is not giving people the right to shelter," said Danna Mauch, a Boston advocate for the homeless. "It is giving people the right to an alternative in the absence of shelter." The ruling also is apparently the first to require safe zones, said Robert M. Hayes, a Portland, Maine, attorney and founder of the National Coalition for the Homeless. "Obviously, though it's called a safe zone, the streets are never a safe place to be," he added. The next step in the suit is determining damages owed to the homeless people. Benjamin Waxman, a Miami attorney representing the homeless plaintiffs, said the ACLU hasn't settled on an amount to seek, but that $10,000 for each homeless person wouldn't be out of line. The money would go to a social-service group, ACLU lawyers have said. Mr. Waxman said Miami police have made at least 3,500 arrests of homeless people -- and perhaps twice that number -- in the past 3 1/2 years. Many are arrested in so-called sweeps during conventions or other events, but few are ever charged with a crime, advocates said. Attorneys for the city didn't return phone calls seeking comment on whether they will appeal. (Michael Pottinger et al. vs. City of Miami, U. S. District Court, Miami, 882406-Civ.-Atkins) --- MARLEY ESTATE wasn't defrauded by reggae singer's widow, jury finds. After deliberating for nearly two weeks, a federal jury in New York rejected allegations by the administrator of Bob Marley's estate that Rita Marley, the law firm Coudert Brothers and a former tax partner at the firm who had represented Mr. Marley cheated the estate of more than $20 million. But the jury did find that two professionals close to Mr. Marley-David Steinberg, a lawyer, and Marvin Zolt, an accountant-defrauded the estate of the Jamaican music star whose career they helped build. The jury found both men liable for more than $1 million in compensatory damages and found Mr. Steinberg liable for $1 million in punitive damages. Attorneys for the two men said they plan to ask U. S. District Judge Kenneth Conboy, who oversaw the trial, to throw out the damage awards because the jury also found that the estate knew what Messrs. Steinberg and Zolt were doing four years before filing suit. Mrs. Marley's lawyer, Kaare Phillips, of New York's Grais & Phillips, called the verdict a "complete vindication" of her client. "It's too long coming," Ms. Phillips said. Robert Brundige Jr., an attorney at Hughes Hubbard & Reed in New York, which represented the estate, called the verdict "disappointing." The estate had claimed that the lawyers, the accountant and Mrs. Marley, who is also a singer, fraudulently moved the bulk of Mr. Marley's wealth beyond the reach of the estate. The dispute is complicated by the fact that Mr. Marley left no will when he died in May 1981, at age 36, of inoperable brain cancer. --- Corrections & Amplifications ANTHONY BLANCO, whose parents sued his companion after he died of AIDS, left a portion of his estate to his parents and brothers. Yesterday's Legal Beat column incorrectly reported that all of the estate was left to his companion. (WSJ Nov. 19, 1992) [This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]