## Facts

- Plaintiffs received medical or dental treatment from a health-care provider.
- Plaintiffs later learned of allegedly inadequate infection-control practices during treatment.
- Plaintiffs feared they had been exposed to HIV and experienced emotional distress, sought HIV testing, and in some instances reported stress-related physical symptoms.
- No plaintiff was shown to be HIV-positive.
- The record did not establish contact with HIV-positive material through a scientifically recognized route of transmission.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs may recover emotional distress damages for fear of contracting HIV/AIDS when they are not infected and cannot show a medically significant exposure to HIV.
2. Whether recovery requires objective, scientific proof that the plaintiff contacted HIV-positive material through a recognized transmission channel rather than relying on generalized fear.
3. What limiting rule governs fear-of-HIV claims to prevent speculative liability.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the defendant.
- The court held that fear-of-HIV emotional distress is not compensable absent proof of actual HIV infection or medically significant exposure to HIV.
- Because plaintiffs failed to show scientifically verifiable exposure to HIV-positive material via a recognized transmission route, their claims were legally insufficient.

## Legal Principles

- Fear-of-disease emotional distress for HIV/AIDS is actionable only upon proof of:
  - actual HIV infection, or
  - medically significant exposure involving contact with material known to be HIV-positive through a scientifically recognized route of transmission.
- Subjective fear, even if genuine and severe, does not establish compensable injury without objective evidence of realistic risk.
- Courts may require scientific and medical proof of exposure and transmission mechanism as a gatekeeping limit on speculative emotional distress claims.

## Conclusion

The court rejected AIDS-phobia liability based on speculative risk, requiring plaintiffs to prove either HIV infection or an objectively verifiable, medically significant exposure to HIV-positive material through a recognized transmission pathway before recovering emotional distress damages.


Majca v. Beekil, 701 N.E.2d 1084 (Ill. 1998)