In Behr v. Redmond (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 517, the plaintiff sued the defendant for transmitting genital herpes to her. One of the plaintiff's causes of action was for fraud by misrepresentation. This cause of action "was based on allegations that defendant misrepresented to plaintiff that she could not be infected with herpes if he was not having an outbreak of the disease at the time of sexual contact." (Id., at p. 531.) "The special verdict form called for the jury to make a finding as to whether defendant 'fraudulently concealed' his genital herpes from plaintiff, but did not call for a finding ... as to whether defendant made any affirmative misrepresentation. Nevertheless, the trial court entered judgment in plaintiff's favor on the cause of action for fraud by misrepresentation." (Ibid.) The appellate court concluded: "Because a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation requires a finding that the defendant made a misrepresentation, the absence of such a finding precludes judgment for the plaintiff on that claim." (Ibid.) The court further concluded that the defendant had not waived the issue by failing to object: "The failure to include a finding on the fact of misrepresentation is not an ambiguity that needed clarification; it is simply the absence of a factual finding necessary to support a cause of action. ... Defendant 'is not challenging the special verdict form as such. He merely argues the verdict form submitted by plaintiff, and the verdict returned by the jury, does not support entry of judgment on a ... theory' asserted in the complaint. ... The plaintiff ... had responsibility for submitting a verdict form sufficient to support her causes of action. If she chose not to include a proposed factual finding essential to one of her claims, it is not incumbent on ... the defendant ... to make sure the omission is cured." (Id., at pp. 531-532.) The Court found the evidence of future medical expenses insufficient to support the jury's award. There, defendant negligently transferred genital herpes to plaintiff. The jury awarded plaintiff $3,600 for past medical expenses and $2.5 million for future medical care. (Id. at p. 524.) On appeal, the court concluded the future medical care award was not supported by substantial evidence. First, there was no evidence plaintiff would need any future medical care other than herpes medication. To the extent the jury's award was based on plaintiff's uninsurability, it was unsupported by any evidence. (Id. at p. 534.) Second, plaintiff testified she was taking medication to control the herpes. According to the medical expert, the medication suppressed the herpes virus and plaintiff had not had an outbreak of the disease while taking the medication. A one-month supply of the drug cost $200 and plaintiff was 56 years old at the time of trial. Plaintiff testified her mother was 95 years old and plaintiff's counsel argued plaintiff had "a good 35 years left." The court held that plaintiff's testimony was insufficient to support a determination of her life expectancy given that the life expectancy table included in the CACI jury instructions indicated a life expectancy of 27.4 years. (Ibid.) The court concluded the only substantial evidence that supported damages for future medical expenses was the evidence of the cost of the medication over plaintiff's expected lifespan. That amount was no more than the $72,000 urged by defendant. The court modified the judgment and reduced the award accordingly. (Id. at p. 535.)