Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc.

Florida resident Robert Colavito (plaintiff) suffered from grave kidney disease and needed a transplant. When Colavito’s friend Peter Lucia died, Colavito was the intended recipient of Lucia’s kidneys. The New York Organ Donor Network, Inc. (NYODN) sent one kidney from New York to Florida for implantation in Colavito. However, Colavito’s doctor discovered the kidney was damaged. The doctor asked NYODN to send Lucia’s other kidney. However, against the Lucia family’s wishes, NYODN had already allocated the second kidney to another transplant recipient, and the transplant procedure was underway. Colavito sued NYODN in federal court for fraud, conversion, and violation of the New York Public Health Law. The conversion and health-law claims were viable only if Colavito had an enforceable right to the second Lucia kidney. NYODN moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that evidence showed the Lucia kidneys were useless to Colavito because they were incompatible with Colavito’s immune system. Colavito refused to concede that a successful transplant would have been impossible but failed to present any evidence of compatibility. The district court sidestepped the compatibility issue, holding that compatibility was immaterial because it was against public policy to recognize property interests in human corpses. It therefore granted summary judgment to NYODN. When Colavito appealed, the Second Circuit certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals, seeking clarification of New York law. The New York Court of Appeals held that although the intended recipient of a donated organ might have a right to the organ under New York common law, it was unnecessary to decide that matter in this case because an intended recipient of an organ certainly has no enforceable right to the organ if the organ is incompatible. The New York Court of Appeals similarly held that a claim under the New York Public Health Law is viable only if the intended recipient falls within the statutory definition of a donee, meaning the recipient must be someone who needed the donated organ. An intended recipient does not need an organ if the organ is incompatible, negating any health-law claim. The case then moved back to the Second Circuit for application of the newly clarified New York law.