infliction of emotional distress and gross negligence insofar as those claims are based upon a theory of ratification by defendant Restaurant Management of the acts of defendant Jones. Finally, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Taco Bell is affirmed as to all of the trooper’s claims. Affirmed in part, reversed in part as to Restaurant Management. Affirmed as to Taco Bell. Judges McGEE and BIGGS concur. 1 . Courts in other jurisdictions have held that fear of contamination or contraction of communicable diseases may support recovery by a plaintiff, even though the plaintiff does not show actual exposure to any communicable disease. See Marchica v. Long Island R.R. Co., 31 F.3d 1197, 1204 (2nd Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1079, 130 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Madrid v. Lincoln County Med. Ctr.,
holding that to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on fear of contracting aids plaintiff must allege actual exposure to hiv holding that in being discharged employee did not sustain the direct physical impact required to maintain an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress holding that where plaintiffs emotional distress was the direct result of documented physical injury and was reasonably foreseeable in light of the fact that the plaintiff may have been exposed to hiv he was not required to prove actual exposure to the disease in order to state a viable cause of action holding in a fcra case that plaintiffs may not rely on mere  conclusory statements  rather they must  sufficiently articulate  true demonstrable emotional distress  including the factual context in which the emotional distress arose evidence corroborating the testimony of the plaintiff the nexus between the conduct of the defendant and the emotional distress the degree of such mental distress mitigating circumstances if any physical injuries suffered due to the emotional distress medical attention resulting from the emotional duress psychiatric or psychological treatment and the loss of income if any holding that absent any proof that the plaintiff was in fact exposed to hiv he could not recover damages for his fear of contracting aids