Supreme Court weighs disclosure of HIV status

[xchrom]

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-hiv-20111201,0,4050316.story

Reporting from Washington—
The Supreme Court gave a generally skeptical hearing to a recreational pilot from San Francisco who wants damages from the government for disclosing his HIV status to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The case before the court Wednesday began in 2002, when the FAA heard a report of a pilot who had hidden his severe medical condition when he renewed his license to fly. Agents decided to check the records of 45,000 pilots in Northern California.

They learned from the Social Security Administration that Stanmore Cooper had obtained long-term disability benefits in 1995 because of his HIV condition. A year earlier, he had reapplied for his pilot's license but failed to disclose his medical condition to the FAA. At the time, his illness may well have prevented him from renewing his license had it been revealed.

Cooper's pilot's license was revoked and he was charged with making false statements to the government. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and was fined $1,000.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. not sure how i feel about this. i dont think HIV should prevent people from

being pilots however being on long-term disability does seem to me to be a reason why one shouldn't pilot a plane.

[xchrom]

2. ...

:hi: :loveya:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. how do you feel about it?

:loveya: :hug:

[xchrom]

4. i'm really not for the disclosure of HIV status.

but i remember the horrifying discrimination of the not too distant past.

employment very difficult, school children hounded out of schools, etc.

we are still those people.

and if you have HIV you should be on disability -- even if you work -- because that can change at any time.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. no, i agree that his status should not have been disclosed

i was only talking about the piloting

[xchrom]

6. As far as I could tell - he could still do his job.

So I guess I'd have to ask were other people w/ chronic conditions but not HIV treated the same?

[DCKit]

8. He's a recreational (aka "private") pilot.

He was on full disability from whatever his previous job was.

He probably would have had a better go of it if he'd been denied on his (admitted) HIV status then sued, or someone at FAA would have just said "No big deal. It's HIV, not a seizure condition."

Regardless, like the rest of you, I'd have to think long and hard about this situation (and I probably still wouldn't be able to make up my mind).

[xchrom]

9. So is there a list of chronic conditions that

Are distributed to pilots that let's them know they can't fly?

Or is it case by case?

[DCKit]

10. Dunno. It's government. Maybe they don't tell you until you admit to a medical condition.

But I'll bet that epilepsy is right at the top.

[xchrom]

11. i can understand epilepsy -- but i'm wary of this. nt

[DCKit]

13. I think everyone on this thread is wary of this. nt

[joeybee12]

7. That's the way I feel, also...nt

[William769]

12. Whats next? Drivers licenses?

A HIV positive person may have a bad day lets stop him from driving. There are so many comparisons that can be made here.

It could not have been severe enough if they renewed the license.

If you have ever wanted to see me go on a rampage, you just found the subject.

It's disgusting that this is even being discussed.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. but no one is really talking about hiv per se. the issue is should people

on long term disability be able to pilot? if he was just hiv positive and didnt need to be out of work for disability, this wouldn't even be an issue (to me).

[William769]

15. I have been on long term disability since 2005.

There are things I just cannot do. Being a ex pilot for Civil Air Patrol is not one of them.

Disabilities come in all shapes, Disabled people overcome many obstacles.

I have my had bouts with AIDS over the years but not once did it just happen, there was a process that took some time.

All this is, is just discrimination, plain & simple.

[beyurslf]

16. The issue in the suit is whether he can sue for monetary damages--not whether he should have been

denied the license if he had disclosed his status. I certainly think he should be allowed to sue. Illegal disclosure of HIV status is something that would cause emotional harm to many positive people, and the government should be liable for that damage.

[TheWraith]

17. Actually, the way I read it is that that's very relevant.

If he should have been denied the license renewal based on medical condition, then he was indeed concealing relevant information, and he got busted.

If he should not have been denied the renewal based on his medical condition, then he suffered wrongful disclosure of private medical data for which the government is liable.

[beyurslf]

18. He pled guilty to that crime and was punished. His suit has nothing to do with whether he should

have disclosed. It is about whether the government can be liable for more than actual damages for their illegal disclosure. In other words, can he sue for pain, suffering, and emotional distress.

"Cooper then sued the FAA for violating the Privacy Act, which permits claims for "actual damages." Lower courts have been split for decades over whether these damages are limited to monetary losses or can also include claims for mental distress."

The article does not ever say anything about his lack of disclosure being a part of this suit.