Ending a marriage through divorce can often be a challenging and emotionally charged experience. However, one individual elevated the situation to a new extreme when his spouse initiated the legal process to dissolve their union.
In contentious divorce cases, it’s common to anticipate that issues such as property division, including the family home, and child custody will take center stage in the ensuing legal proceedings.
However, for one individual, the situation took an even more extraordinary turn. Prior to the divorce, presumably during a period when their relationship was more amicable, he had altruistically donated one of his kidneys to his wife.
Indeed, it’s a poignant gesture, one that might typically epitomize love and dedication in a relationship.
However, Dr. Richard Batista tarnished the significance of this gift when he demanded that his wife, Dawnell, either return the kidney or compensate him with $1.5 million after she initiated divorce proceedings.
The couple exchanged vows in 1990 and subsequently welcomed three children into their family.
Dr. Batista asserted that their marriage had already been strained by his wife’s ongoing medical issues prior to the divorce proceedings.
Following two unsuccessful kidney transplants, he made the decision in 2001 to donate one of his kidneys, aiming to save both his wife’s life and salvage their marriage.
He expressed to reporters at the time, “My foremost priority was to save her life. The additional benefit was to potentially mend our marriage.”
Dr Richard Batista demanded his wife return the kidney he donated. Credit: CBS
However, it appears that while the procedure was successful in saving Dawnell’s life, the anticipated improvement in their relationship did not materialize, as she filed for divorce in 2005.
Dr. Batista leveled an accusation of infidelity against her and countered by making an extraordinary demand: inclusion of his donated kidney or compensation of $1.5 million as part of the settlement.
His lawyer, Dominic Barbara, clarified that his client was requesting “the value of the kidney” that he had donated to Dawnell.
Experts, ranging from lawyers to specialists in medical ethics, unanimously agreed that the case was a complete non-starter.
Medical ethicist Robert Veatch stated at the time, “It’s her kidney now, and removing it would mean she’d have to go on dialysis or it would kill her.”
Dawnell Batista filed for divorce in 2005. Credit: CBS
Needless to say, Dr. Batista did not succeed in obtaining either the kidney or the compensation during the divorce proceedings.
The Nassau County Supreme Court, in a 10-page decision, dismissed his request and ruled that the kidney constituted a gift.
“Matrimonial referee Jeffrey Grob stated, “The defendant’s effort to pursue and extract monetary compensation therefore not only runs afoul of the statutory prescription, but conceivably may expose the defendant to criminal prosecution.”
In the United States, when someone donates an organ, it is legally considered to be a gift. This measure is in place to prevent the sale of organs for money.
But that didn’t deter Batista from making his peculiar demand.
Dawnell’s attorney, Douglas Rothkopf, expressed satisfaction with the outcome, stating, “We are pleased with the decision.”
“Human organs are not commodities that can be bought or sold.”
