Parents Tell of Grief in Lawsuit Over Harvest of Son’s Cornea

Richard Baltierra sought solace in the family photographs after his only son and namesake took his life with a shotgun two years ago.

He would look into the shining brown eyes of the boy he had taken bowling and fishing and ask, “What was going through your mind?”

But when Baltierra picked up the report of the autopsy two weeks after the death, he noticed a mysterious notation--”Corneas CGC24791.47.”

That jargon--shorthand for the fact that his son’s corneas had been taken from his body--eventually stole even the small comfort of his photograph, Baltierra told a jury Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court.

So began the first day of the first civil trial emerging from a wholesale harvesting of corneas under a controversial arrangement between the Los Angeles County coroner’s office and the Lions Doheny Eye and Tissue Bank.

Half a dozen lawsuits have been filed this year, and more could follow if the Baltierras prevail.

The county and the eye bank maintain that no laws were broken and that they were motivated by humanitarian concerns.

Baltierra and his wife, Sandy, both of Valinda, testified Tuesday that the notation on the autopsy report was the only notice they received that the 17-year-old’s corneas had been taken, despite the father’s repeated objections to any autopsy or organ donation.

As a result, Baltierra said, when he looks at his son’s picture, “the thing that comes to my mind is he was violated.”

Thousands of corneas have been taken and sold over the years by Doheny without the knowledge of family members. The authority came from an obscure “implied consent” section of a state law.

Coroner’s investigator Robert Fierro, called as a witness by the Baltierras’ lawyer, told the jury it was not his office’s practice at the time to ask family members whether they consented to organ donations. Nor did Richard Baltierra volunteer any objections, he said, adding that such comments would have been reflected in his report.

*

In the wake of a Times report on the cornea harvesting, the coroner’s office changed its policy, saying it would actively seek families’ permission.

The Baltierras say that the former policy heaped added anguish on a grieving family. They are seeking unspecified damages from the county and the eye bank for negligence and inflicting emotional distress.

Baltierra testified that when he learned his son’s corneas had been harvested, he demanded answers from coroner’s officials but was merely given a phone number to call.

Later, when the deputy medical examiner who performed the autopsy returned his call, Baltierra said the official justified the taking of the corneas by quoting from the implied consent law.

“I asked him, ‘What gave them the right?’ ” Baltierra said. “What did this code mean?”

The law permits the removal of corneas if no known objections exist from the next of kin. But a loophole in the law does not require coroners to seek that permission, putting the burden on the families.

The Baltierra family’s lawsuit, filed a year ago by attorney Joel Warren, alleges that, as a matter of policy, county officials and the eye bank exploited that loophole for financial gain.

The Times reported that Doheny paid coroner’s officials $215 to $335 for each set of corneas. The eye bank sold them to transplant institutions for a $3,400 “processing fee.”

According to testimony Tuesday, an autopsy room at the coroner’s office for a time served as Doheny’s harvesting facility.

Robert L. Dickson, an attorney for the eye bank, said during opening statements that the county and the eye bank were motivated by the desire to do good. According to testimony, Richard Baltierra Jr.’s corneas gave sight to two women in New Jersey.

In describing his emotional pain, Baltierra, a solemn, dark-haired man wearing aviator-style eyeglasses, said: “I have my own belief that when we leave this world we should go intact, whole.

“It put me over the edge to find out that despite my objections something did happen to my son, that something was in fact taken from him. I was furious.”

His wife, Sandy, testified that Baltierra “couldn’t believe that they could be that callous or insensitive just because there was a law that said they can do this.”

Seeing the autopsy notation about her stepson’s corneas, “my blood just ran so cold,” she said.

When he took his life July 22, 1996, Richard Baltierra Jr. apparently was despondent over a breakup with a girlfriend and his failure to graduate from high school with his class. His father, mother and sister were out to dinner.

His 11-year-old sister, who always sought him out when she returned home, found him. Sprawled on the bed, the body was surrounded by letters and photographs of a young woman.

*

Police arrived at the house to find Baltierra leaning over his son’s body, checking for vital signs. He testified that later that night, he repeatedly told officers and coroner’s officials that he did not want his son’s body violated any more than it had been.

“I felt I still had to protect my son, even after what he did to himself,” he said. “I asked them not to put his body in a body bag. I told them I didn’t want him taken to a place and put on a table where they would cut him open,” he said.

Wondering whether drugs or alcohol had driven his son to take his own life, Baltierra requested the autopsy report. There were no traces of illegal substances in the teenager’s system, but there was tell-tale evidence that the corneas had been harvested.

Seeing that, Baltierra said, his grief was compounded by a paralyzing anger. “I felt that I could not function anymore. I felt I wanted to give up. . . . I felt that I didn’t have the willpower to go on.”