kidney for his broken heart? don't think so!!

if you haven't heard, the court officially tossed out the case brought forth by Long Island physician Richard Batista, who was suing his estranged ex-wife for the return of his kidney.

i've been very interested to know how this case would be decided. albeit, the case is stupid and the doctor's premise is outlandish. but i love daydreaming that i am the judge hearing this case (what can i say? i love drama!) these would have been the issues that came to mind:

• was there truly a meeting of the minds, and an agreement on the terms? no matter how sick and in need, i can't believe that Mrs. Batista, in good faith, agreed to 1. know forseeably that she would love Dr. Batista forever and 2. that if she did ever stop loving him, she would give him the kidney back or $1.5 million dollars. the risk that she might be wrong and lose the kidney or the cash far outweigh the likelihood of her being correct. in this instance, a meeting of the minds is difficult to prove, particularly with the complicating issues of bodily organs and pre-op agreements. and if there was no meeting of the minds, there was no additional contract beyond the marriage contract. anything given during the course of a marriage is, generally, a gift.
  


• how much of the kidney is Dr. Batista's property and how much is Mrs. Batista's property? let's say that there was a meeting of the minds and Mrs. Batista did agree to Dr. Batista's terms to return the kidney if she fell out of love with him. unfortunately, a kidney is not a car -- once Dr. Batista gave or loaned the kidney to his wife, it became a part of her in a tangible way, and her body began the care, upkeep and maintainance of the kidney. because Dr. Batista is a physician, it is reasonable to expect that he had prior knowledge that this is the way the body works, and an understanding that, should the kidney be returned, it would be returned in better care and condition than he loaned it to Mrs. Batista in. how should Mrs. Batista be compensated for the work and care she has given the loaned kidney? additionally, cells in the body renew themselves at regular intervals, and eventually, the cells of the loaned or gifted kidney would have a significant percentage of Mrs. Batista's own cells supporting it. if Dr. Batista is due his kidney back, is not Mrs. Batista owed the portion of kidney that was renewed and regenerated in her body?
  


• even if Dr. and Mrs. Batista did have this agreement and the court can roughly determine how much of the kidney is still Dr. Batista's and how much is Mrs. Batista's, is this agreement even enforceable? isn't it illegal to buy and sell organs? and does not the stipulation of give me my kidney back OR pay me a million dollars make this an illegal and therefore unenforcable agreement?
  

according to the NY Post, Judge Jeffrey Grob, who dismissed this frivolous case and wrote a 10-page summary of the decision went with my third point. Judge Grob suggested Dr. Batista may have committed a crime by trying to extort money from his ex with his "a million dollars, or your kidney" tirade. at the day's end, i think it just makes him sound like one of the villians from those old 1950s horror films. however, i am definitely wondering if the former Mrs. Batista and her legal counsel will pursue Judge Grob's suggestion...