As funeral homes go, Van Patton’s was the finest. It was four, proud generations of funeral heritage and had a reputation of “service to all, no matter what your means.” It was rumored that the Van Patton family were descendants of Johannes
As funeral homes go, Van Patton’s was the finest. It was four, proud generations of funeral heritage and had a reputation of “service to all, no matter what your means.” It was rumored that the Van Patton family were descendants of Johannes Vermeer and that two of his paintings hung rather sublimely in the entrance foyer. Ditmar Van Patton, IV, volunteered and sat on the board of the town’s privately-owned children’s nursing center, Petits Angus, a long-term and terminal care center specifically for children with fundamental, developmental disabilities. Van Patton’s took care of almost every child who died within the facility, regardless of payment.
Van Patton’s was called for the death of a 25-year-old female named Lydia. She suffered from many severe congenital anomalies – among them was Gardener’s Syndrome including supernumerary (hyperdontia) teeth. Due to her fragility and other conditions, she never had the ability to fully close her mouth. Van Patton’s embalmer, Jack Hystek, was highly experienced but never dealt with a peculiarity like this. Visitations at the funeral home, that involved patients from Petits Angus, were always huge with the entire staff coming to the service. This was a night call and he was off the next morning. Rather than chance, his work backing up, he decided to embalm right away. To close this young lady’s mouth and to set her features properly, Jack would need to remove two upper and lower teeth on each side of the jaw. This would necessitate pliers and a screwdriver and over an hour’s extra time. Once complete, although having a pronounced prognathism, the line of the jaw aligned symmetrically and the lips closed perfectly. Once dressed, cosmetized, and hair complete – she looked wonderful.
Lydia’s father, mother, and younger sister had seen her with her mouth open her entire life. They never asked about preparation procedures and presumed that when they returned to the funeral home for the visitation and funeral service, her mouth would just be open. On the other hand, when Ditmar made arrangements, he was unaware of the young lady’s condition, and by the time the family arrived for arrangements, she had already been embalmed.
The family arrived 30 minutes before the visitation for some private time. They thanked Ditmar for the donation of the funeral. The family did not have the means to pay and much of Lydia’s care came from public assistance. Upon entering the chapel, their initial reaction was one of relief – she looked wonderful. The family asked the visitation attendant to set up some photo boards and asked where the lounge and restrooms were located. After an hour, the mother was curious and asked to speak with Ditmar. She was curious as to how they managed to close Lydia’s mouth because she was aware that medically, it was impossible. “Certainly, you wouldn’t do anything to our little girl, would you?” inquired the mother as her eyes welled up with tears. Ditmar, uncertain about any of this, needed to speak with Jack and said he would return with an explanation. “Perhaps the jaw relaxed in death which allowed it to properly align.” The family retreated to the chapel, but Ditmar could hear the family saying that “they wanted an autopsy.” Visitors at the wake instinctively knew something was wrong and found it curious that Lydia’s mouth was closed. The rumor-mill was an embarrassment to the entire family.
Nervously, Ditmar inquired with Jack and found out about the procedure. The teeth that were removed had been disposed. Ditmar had the unenviable task of reporting to the family that Lydia’s teeth had been surgically removed in order to accommodate the closing of her mouth. As much as he tried to sugar coat it and avoided any mention of the procedure, he maintained that the jaw relaxed after death allowing a more natural closure. The family wasn’t buying it and was mortified at the prospect of having her teeth “knocked out.”
After about an hour, the family, distraught by all of the talk, left during the visitation. The burial was postponed and the family retained an attorney. An independent autopsy revealed the extent of the procedure. There were teeth and bone fragments in the throat of the deceased as well as lacerations on her tongue, buccal tissue, and gums, as well as chipped teeth.
The family is outraged and is suing the funeral home for mutilation of a dead human body, negligent embalming, unauthorized removal of tissues, unauthorized procedures performed on a dead human body, wrongful withholding of a dead human body, unnecessary destruction of remains, and invasion of rights including invasion of confidentiality. Among their claims are mental anguish and extreme emotional distress.
Ditmar argues that the funeral was free and that the procedures were necessary because the family elected to have a visitation with a public viewing. It would be patently wrong to have a visitation where the public would be subjected to a gaping corpse. After all, Van Patton’s has a reputation of uphold.
ISSUE
The issue is “does the removal of teeth from a deceased, by an embalmer, without permission, act as mutilation of a dead human body?”
QUESTIONS
1. What is the likely outcome of each count of the complaint?
2. Did the plaintiff’s attorney miss any other counts?
3. Since there was no charge for the service, is the funeral home in the clear?
4. If the opportunity should present itself for Van Patton’s Funeral Home, should it attempt to settle the case?
