Ending a marriage can be tough and often leads to bitter disputes, but one man's reaction to his wife's divorce filing was unusually extreme.
In many divorces, battles over assets like the home or who gets custody of the children are common issues.
Yet, for this man, the stakes were much higher. Back when their relationship seemed more positive, he had donated a kidney to his wife.
[embedded content]
This act could be seen as the ultimate symbol of love and dedication.
However, Dr. Richard Batista changed the narrative when he demanded that his wife, Dawnell, either give back the kidney or compensate him with $1.5 million after she initiated a divorce.
The pair had married in 1990 and had three children.
Dr. Batista suggested their marriage was already strained due to Dawnell's health problems.
Following her two unsuccessful kidney transplants, he offered one of his kidneys in 2001, hoping to save her life and mend their marriage.
He shared with the media: "My first priority was to save her life. The second bonus was to turn the marriage around."
Auto Draft While the surgery saved Dawnell's life, it did not save their marriage, and she filed for divorce in 2005.
Dr. Batista then accused her of infidelity and made an unprecedented claim in the divorce settlement, demanding the return of his kidney or $1.5 million in compensation.
His attorney, Dominic Barbara, stated, "My client is asking for the value of the kidney he gave to Dawnell."
Legal and medical ethics experts unanimously viewed the claim as baseless.
Medical ethicist Robert Veatch commented, "It's her kidney now and ... taking the kidney out would mean she would have to go on dialysis or it would kill her."
Auto Draft Ultimately, Dr. Batista's attempt to reclaim the kidney or secure financial compensation was unsuccessful.
The Nassau County Supreme Court, in a detailed 10-page decision, dismissed his claim, declaring the kidney a gift and highlighting the potential legal implications of his demand.
In the U.S., organ donation is legally recognized as a gift to deter organ sales.
Despite the unusual nature of his request, Batista pursued it.
Dawnell's lawyer, Douglas Rothkopf, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, stating,
"We are pleased with the decision. Human organs are not commodities that can be bought or sold."
