Verdicts

Jesse Shipley died after suffering injuries in a car accident on Staten Island. The city-employed pathologist who examined the deceased removed his brain for further study, labeling the bottle that contained it with the young man's name. The pathologist was authorized under New York Public Health Law ' 4215(1) to conduct an autopsy, including removing organs for further study, because the deceased had suffered an accidental death. Still, in this case, the medical examiner obtained the father's permission to work on the deceased.

The boy was buried without his brain, and his parents were not specifically told that this body part was missing. The medical examiner kept the brain in the jar in his cabinet because it was his policy to wait until he had six brain specimens before contacting a neuropatholigist, who would then travel to Staten Island to examine all six at once.

Two months following his death, high school students from the deceased's school took a field trip that included a tour of the pathologist's office, saw the jar, and informed his sister of what they had seen. The boy's parents sued the City of New York, claiming violation of the common-law right of sepulcher and of New York's Public Health Law
' 4215(1). They sought damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress due to the alleged mishandling of their son's brain, and its display. They asserted that, even if the medical examiner had the legal authority to conduct the autopsy, he had “mishandled” their son's organs and had thereby “unlawfully interfered” with their right to possession of the decedent's “whole body.”

At trial, the plaintiffs were awarded $1 million in damages, which was later reduced to $600,000 on appeal. This appeal to the state's highest court followed.

The court noted that the intermediate appeals court had correctly found that the father's consent to the autopsy was not required by law, and the medical examiner had authority to perform it at his own discretion. The lower court had gone on to conclude, however, that the medical examiner had “the mandated obligation, pursuant to Public Health Law
' 4215 (1) and the next of kin's common-law right of sepulcher, to turn over the decedent's remains to the next of kin for preservation and proper burial once the legitimate purposes for the retention of those remains [had] been fulfilled,” and that he had an obligation at least to tell the parents that, although the body was ready for burial, certain organs had been removed for further examination. But this reasoning went too far, the Court of Appeals found, because the body had indeed been made available to the parents for burial. Stated the court, “Because the right of sepulcher is premised on the next of kin's right to possess the body for preservation and burial (or other proper disposition), and is geared toward affording the next of kin solace and comfort in the ritual of burying or otherwise properly disposing of the body, it is the act of depriving the next of kin of the body, and not the deprivation of organ or tissue samples within the body, that constitutes a violation of the right of sepulcher.”

The plaintiffs' second cause of action, for violation of Public Health Law ' 4215 (1), was predicated on that statute's mandate that the medical examiner turn the “remains of the body after dissection” over for “burial or other lawful disposition.” That act does not specifically define the term “remains of the body,” however. The Court of Appeals determined that this omission meant the legislature intended the examiner to turn over merely “the body” and not organs and tissue samples taken for the autopsy. Had the legislature intended otherwise, stated the court, it would have included “the specific words 'tissue, organ or part thereof' as it has done in other sections of article 42 of the Public Health Law.”

'

Medical Examiner Keeps Deceased's Heart: No Compensation for Family

New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has determined that a medical examiner who failed to inform a deceased teenager's family that he was keeping the boy's brain when he returned the body to the family for burial did not violate New York statutory law nor the family's common law right of sepulcher. Shipley v. City of New York, 2015 N.Y. LEXIS 1391; 2015 NY Slip Op 04791.

Jesse Shipley died after suffering injuries in a car accident on Staten Island. The city-employed pathologist who examined the deceased removed his brain for further study, labeling the bottle that contained it with the young man's name. The pathologist was authorized under New York Public Health Law ' 4215(1) to conduct an autopsy, including removing organs for further study, because the deceased had suffered an accidental death. Still, in this case, the medical examiner obtained the father's permission to work on the deceased.

The boy was buried without his brain, and his parents were not specifically told that this body part was missing. The medical examiner kept the brain in the jar in his cabinet because it was his policy to wait until he had six brain specimens before contacting a neuropatholigist, who would then travel to Staten Island to examine all six at once.

Two months following his death, high school students from the deceased's school took a field trip that included a tour of the pathologist's office, saw the jar, and informed his sister of what they had seen. The boy's parents sued the City of New York, claiming violation of the common-law right of sepulcher and of New York's Public Health Law
' 4215(1). They sought damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress due to the alleged mishandling of their son's brain, and its display. They asserted that, even if the medical examiner had the legal authority to conduct the autopsy, he had “mishandled” their son's organs and had thereby “unlawfully interfered” with their right to possession of the decedent's “whole body.”

At trial, the plaintiffs were awarded $1 million in damages, which was later reduced to $600,000 on appeal. This appeal to the state's highest court followed.

The court noted that the intermediate appeals court had correctly found that the father's consent to the autopsy was not required by law, and the medical examiner had authority to perform it at his own discretion. The lower court had gone on to conclude, however, that the medical examiner had “the mandated obligation, pursuant to Public Health Law
' 4215 (1) and the next of kin's common-law right of sepulcher, to turn over the decedent's remains to the next of kin for preservation and proper burial once the legitimate purposes for the retention of those remains [had] been fulfilled,” and that he had an obligation at least to tell the parents that, although the body was ready for burial, certain organs had been removed for further examination. But this reasoning went too far, the Court of Appeals found, because the body had indeed been made available to the parents for burial. Stated the court, “Because the right of sepulcher is premised on the next of kin's right to possess the body for preservation and burial (or other proper disposition), and is geared toward affording the next of kin solace and comfort in the ritual of burying or otherwise properly disposing of the body, it is the act of depriving the next of kin of the body, and not the deprivation of organ or tissue samples within the body, that constitutes a violation of the right of sepulcher.”

The plaintiffs' second cause of action, for violation of Public Health Law ' 4215 (1), was predicated on that statute's mandate that the medical examiner turn the “remains of the body after dissection” over for “burial or other lawful disposition.” That act does not specifically define the term “remains of the body,” however. The Court of Appeals determined that this omission meant the legislature intended the examiner to turn over merely “the body” and not organs and tissue samples taken for the autopsy. Had the legislature intended otherwise, stated the court, it would have included “the specific words 'tissue, organ or part thereof' as it has done in other sections of article 42 of the Public Health Law.”