Kidney patient sued by donor over 'oral contract'

[okarol]

 Nov. 19, 2008

Kidney patient sued by donor over 'oral contract'

By DYLAN T. LOVAN - Associated Press Writer

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A western Kentucky man who donated a kidney has sued the recipient for not honoring an "oral contract" he said the two men struck before surgery.

Bob Stogner said the ailing kidney recipient, Thomas Clendenen, owes him more than $4,167 for construction work performed on Stogner's home.

Stogner agreed to move up the date of the kidney transplant if Clendenen agreed to help Stogner cover some costs of construction work being done on Stogner's home, according to the suit filed last month in Calloway District Court.
Click Here!

Stogner, of Murray, said he needed to hire a contractor to free him up for the transplant surgery.

Clendenen has argued in court filings that the suit should be dismissed, since it is unlawful to trade a human organ for money.

Stogner said the dispute has caused him "gutwrenching hurt."

"This has sickened me. You just don't believe somebody's capable of this," Stogner said. The transplant "needed to be done, but when I called him and told him how much the rest of his (part) was, he laughed."

Clendenen's wife, Carolyn, said in a telephone interview that her 61-year-old husband is a diabetic and was on a kidney dialysis machine while awaiting a transplant, which he received in June.

"We praise Bob for what he did," she said. "He did a wonderful thing."

Carolyn Clendenen said her husband agreed to pay for a small portion of the work. The two men, who know each other through Clendenen's brother, had only a verbal agreement, the suit said.

Clendenen paid $1,100 to Stogner, according to the suit.

But Carolyn Clendenen said that Stogner may have misunderstood the agreement. She said it was for the cost of roof on the addition, to protect it from the weather.

"Two or three weeks later you get a call saying (Stogner) wants more," she said.

After Stogner was approved to be a donor, a date for the transplant was set for August, according to the suit. But Clendenen later asked Stogner to move the date up to June, and offered to pay for some of the construction costs, according to the suit.

The suit said Clendenen has a "contractual obligation" to pay for the construction costs.

http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/598179.html

[Kitsune]

Legally, he doesn't. But morally, if he offered to help Mr. Stogner with his bills, he should. Making promises and not keeping them is an awful thing to do to a friend. It makes them not want to help you again.

[Katey]

I am from Kentucky and never heard about this on the news or anything.  This is something that should be reported.
The problem with this is a couple of things..."oral contract" is the first which no one should ever have something w/o it being in writing.  The other is if he owes him the money that is one thing but it appears the only reason the kidney was given is for the money and that is illegal.  Keep us posted if you hear of addtl info!!

[Chris]

I have to reread this one to fully give an opinion.

Katey makes a point, but something in the back of my head says there is something more to say.