The lawsuit alleges an Air Force veteran’s organs, skin and eyes were removed without authorization from him or his daughters after his death.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The daughters of a deceased Air Force veteran have filed a lawsuit accusing a Tennessee hospital and an organ procurement organization of removing their father’s organs and tissue without family authorization and without making meaningful efforts to contact relatives before the procedures were carried out.
The complaint centers on the death of 73-year-old Jerry Bynum, a U.S. Air Force veteran who died in 2024 after receiving treatment at a Nashville-area hospital. According to the lawsuit, hospital staff and an affiliated organ procurement organization authorized the removal of Bynum’s organs, skin and eyes even though neither Bynum nor his daughters had granted permission. The lawsuit alleges the defendants ignored legal requirements governing organ and tissue donation and failed to notify immediate family members before proceeding. The allegations have intensified scrutiny around how hospitals and donation organizations verify consent and communicate with families after a patient’s death.
According to court filings, Bynum was admitted to Ascension Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital after suffering serious medical complications. The lawsuit states that after his death, representatives connected to Tennessee Donor Services allegedly classified him as an anatomical donor despite lacking authorization documentation signed by either Bynum or his next of kin. Attorneys for the family claim the defendants made no serious attempt to contact Bynum’s daughters before tissue recovery procedures began. The complaint alleges that by the time relatives learned what had happened, Bynum’s eyes, skin and other tissue had already been removed. “They treated his body like property instead of a person,” attorney Shabnam Malek said in statements included in the filing. The lawsuit claims the actions caused severe emotional distress and interfered with the family’s ability to carry out funeral preparations according to their wishes.
The family alleges hospital officials and donation coordinators relied on incomplete or inaccurate records to justify the tissue procurement process. Court documents state Bynum was not registered as an organ donor through Tennessee’s donor registry and had not signed advance directives authorizing donation. The complaint further alleges staff members either failed to document consent efforts or knowingly proceeded without obtaining proper authorization. Tennessee Donor Services, which coordinates organ and tissue recovery across much of the state, has not publicly addressed the specific allegations in detail because of pending litigation. In statements reported by local media, representatives connected to the organization said donation agencies are required to follow state and federal laws governing authorization procedures. Hospital officials also declined to comment extensively on the allegations but said patient privacy laws limit what can be discussed publicly regarding individual cases.
The case arrives amid broader national debate over organ and tissue procurement practices, particularly involving disputed consent procedures and communication failures with families. Organ procurement organizations operate under strict federal oversight and play a major role in recovering organs and tissue for transplant patients, medical research and other approved uses. While many donations save lives, lawsuits involving alleged consent violations have surfaced in multiple states during the past decade. Critics argue hospitals and donation agencies sometimes move too quickly during the narrow time window available for tissue recovery after death. Supporters of the donation system, however, maintain that procurement organizations follow extensive regulatory standards and that misunderstandings about consent processes can occur during emotionally difficult situations for families. The lawsuit involving Bynum does not accuse doctors of causing his death but instead focuses on actions allegedly taken afterward without legal authorization.
The civil complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages against the hospital, Tennessee Donor Services and additional defendants connected to the procurement process. Attorneys for the family argue the alleged conduct violated Tennessee law governing anatomical gifts, negligence standards and protections involving the handling of human remains. The defendants are expected to respond formally in court filings in the coming weeks. A judge has not yet ruled on the allegations, and no findings of wrongdoing have been made. Legal experts say the case could hinge on documentation records, donor registry verification procedures and whether reasonable efforts were made to locate next of kin before tissue recovery operations began. Discovery proceedings are expected to include internal communications, consent forms, hospital protocols and testimony from medical personnel involved in the case.
Relatives described Bynum as a proud military veteran and devoted father whose family wanted to honor him through a traditional funeral process. According to the lawsuit, his daughters were shocked when they learned portions of his body had allegedly been removed without their knowledge. Family members said the discovery intensified their grief and left lasting emotional trauma. “We can’t undo what happened to our father,” one daughter said in statements included with the complaint, “but we want accountability.” The lawsuit argues the alleged failures damaged the family’s trust in both the hospital system and the organ procurement process. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they hope the case leads to closer review of procedures surrounding consent verification and family notification after deaths in medical facilities.
The lawsuit remains in its early stages, and court hearings are expected later this year as both sides prepare legal arguments and evidence. Defendants have not admitted wrongdoing, and the allegations contained in the complaint have not yet been tested in court.