L.I. Man Sues Wife Over Donated Kidney

L.I. Man Sues Wife Over Donated Kidney

www.myfoxdc.com

A Long Island surgeon who donated a kidney to his wife is now suing her -- he wants the kidney back

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.associatedcontent.com

This is ridiculous. I mean I give it to the guy that he is probably very ticked off, he gives her a kidney and she messed around on him, that was wrong, but to attempt to sue for his kidney? Isn't there some kind of agreement when donating an organ to another that says it is final? I know that when someone dies and is a donor their family has to go over every item to be used or removed and sign to allow that to be done.

www.myfoxdc.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I agree you cannot get it back and it sets up a dangerous precidence IMHO and could destroy the hugely successfull living related donor program nationwide

Our center has an almost 98% success rate for children with this type of donation.

What kind of nasty divorce / marriage must this have been.

And I really hope a special place in hell is reserved for this particular type of ambulance chasing, bloodsucking attorney that thinks this is a legit asset

He will never win. He should have saved himself the money, (and some dignity) and just taken it as a lesson in life. You cant buy love. Not with money, and not with organs. And if you give a gift with strings attached, expect disappointment.

reply to post by FredT


You are absolutly right, something like this frivolous case could upset the manner of donation as we currently conduct it, and any upset in that system could be the life of another.

I will be interested to see the outcome of this case.

I watched a "Believe It or Not" kind of show not long ago where a man that lost his leg had put his severed appendage in his grill thinking it would be safe. He got foreclosed on and left it there thinking he could come back for it later.

A guy bought the grill after it had been sold at auction and "found" the leg. He literally *charged* people to come and see it.

When the man that originally lost his leg came back for it, the man who found it wouldn't return it. Leg Owner sued Leg Finder...Leg Finder COUNTER SUED because he said that the leg was "bought and paid for" when he got the grill and it was legally HIS!!!

The reason the OP's story interests me is because in the case I mention, the Leg Owner got the leg back but had to pay *damages* to the Leg Finder in excess of $3-5000 (can't remember exact but it was somewhere in there).

If Leg Finder can win a case like that...this guy may actually get his kidney back or at least get damages.

Worth listening for the outcome...

reply to post by jenmckin


wow, so this may not be an unprecidented case then. I have been an advocate of organ donation after my sister did so, her donations helped many, including the gift of sight. Ownership of those parts never crossed my mind however, but technically they belong to the recipeint, since my sister only specified that anything that could help another person, to please use it.

Generally speaking, if a thing is gifted, or given to a person, the courts do not require the recipient to return the gift if the giver later gets mad. Ownership is exchanged in the gift giving process.

Engagement rings are not considered gifts and that is why there are legal cases where the ring has to be returned. An engagement ring is given conditionally, on the condition that a marriage occur. Who breaks the agreement can have bearing on whether or not the ring is kept or returned.

However, they were already married. He gave her the kidney, she received it, legally it is pretty open and shut.

en.wikipedia.org...

Revocation

A donor may revoke a future gift, however a gift delivered and accepted cannot be revoked.

He really doesnt stand a chance. Most likely, he is doing this to show the world what a horrible person she is, and he would not have gotten the press if he did not sensationalize it.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

ok i'm not a lwayer but everyone tells me i should be one.
lets start off easy- when you move or are forclosed on what you leave becomes whomever elses possesion. now certain things you are not allowed to take such as a stove or refrigetrater that is hooked to a water line or wired. now i would assume the same would be for a kidney. if he wants it back so badly why doesn't he just go take it and he'll find out real fast what life in jail is like- go ahead dude be a spiteful jerk
and as for precedents the law seems to not acknowledge anymore- remember the lady who sued mcdonalds for spilling hot coffee on herself? what you don't know coffee is hot? more blonde than i can imagine. but someone else tried to do it and the court threw it out. well wait a minute wasn't there a precedent alreadyset? i thought that was what our judicial system was based on- once they rule it sets the precedent.
ok so i gave blood and didn't like the person it was given to can i go and sue them to get my DONATED blood back?
wtf is this world coming too?

Ya know, I bought a car for a girlfriend once...who then messed around on me. In fact, she used MY car to go see the other guy. I repo'd my car in the middle of the night.

The only reason I wanted it back was because she stopped paying for it. I could sell it and get out from underneath the loan.

Why the hell would this cat want his kidney back? It's not like he can just put it back in right? He can't sell it..The only reason he would want it is out of spite. Not to mention that the swapping of organs could very likely endanger or possibly kill his ex.

Now, I was pretty pissed when I found out about mine, but I didn't want to kill her.

Come on man. This is a bit much.

reply to post by midnightbrigade


yep simply spite. period. how people are anymore.
2nd line

He saved her life by giving her a kidney.
Therefore taking it back equals murder.

Of course he won't get it back, but to express the wish to in court makes him no better in my eyes than the many men who do murder their wives for leaving them.

If she was unfaithful to a vengeful freak like that, (and we only have his word for that,) I'd hardly blame her.

the guy who sueing is doing the correct thing , if i were in his place , i would have shot her at point blink range

reply to post by sadchild01


Why shoot her? You would only be making things worse for yourself. Accept it, move on to a better relationship. Or hell, screw her sister. Or mother. Or both. Then she will see the error of her ways, and you've got your vengeance!

If you kill her, she can't learn nothin!

reply to post by sadchild01


ok first of all i know that was a typo. this may be off topic but just what do you think point blank range is? do some research- point blank can be up to a mile depending on the cartridge. i'm a gun nut and have killed deer at point blank range at 300 yards. not that i don't agree with you in the situation and discussion just the point blank range thing i wanted to clear up

reply to post by midnightbrigade


and i like the way you think- do mother and sister together and brag about it- yeah that might get even

You know what guys? Its against the T&C to discuss illegal activity, and murder is illegal. And, just flat out offensive. You dont kill someone for cheating on you. I was cheated on, its called divorce, good riddance, move on.

You know, other people arent "yours" they have the right to leave you, or sleep around on you, or whatever they want to do in that regard. You DONT have the right to kill them, and it isnt funny to hear people talk that way. You have the right to find someone else.

Please, I just don't find it amusing to say you would kill someone in the name of love or jealousy, it is not and would never be acceptable or worthwhile to do something so drastic.

I like this, trying to get body parts through the courts.

Clearly the dud did not learn from Shakespeare...

Therefore prepare thee to cut off the flesh.
Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more
But just a pound of flesh: if thou cut'st more
Or less than a just pound, be it but so much
As makes it light or heavy in the substance,
Or the division of the twentieth part
Of one poor scruple, nay, if the scale do turn
But in the estimation of a hair, Thou diest and all thy goods are confiscate.

That's Portia's ruling in the case Shylock (the Jew) Vs Bassnio (the Christian) in the Merchant of Venice.

Bassnio is in breech of the terms of a bond and they are before the court, he is offering to pay 2, 3 10 times the amount owed right there on the spot, but Shylock has it in the terms that he can take his pound of flesh from Bassnio's brest... And as he wants him dead, he wants to take his heart!

But there is no mention of blood, and if he does not take exactly a pound - no more no less, or if he spills a single drop of blood diest and all his goods are confiscate

Now wouldn't that be more interesting to see than a press conference out side the courts??

Needles to say the Jew took the money and ran!

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


"If you want to BE wise, say nothing. - - A.E."

Take your quote as advice. Bigfoot and I were telling him NOT to shoot his girl. And don't tell me you weren't talking to us because you used plurals twice. Shhhh the grown ups are talking. Re read our posts before you get all churchy on us again.