MEDIA – A Delaware County judge has overruled preliminary objections from Crozer Health defendants, who are charged with negligence and tortious interference with a corpse and invasion of privacy after the plaintiff’s mother was embalmed and cremated, despite her express wishes.
Richard Payne of Chester first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on May 10 versus Kyle T. Rawls and Reginald L. Rawls (trading as “Earl L. Foster Funeral Home”) of Chester, Derrick Gore (trading as “Gore Funeral Services”), Gore Funeral Home, LLC and Gore Funeral Services, LLC of Wilmington, Del. and Prospect Crozer, LLC and Prospect CCMC, LLC (trading as “Crozer Chester Medical Center”), of Upland.
“Plaintiff’s mother Tawala Kaywood passed away on May 12, 2021 at Crozer Chester Medical Center. She was unmarried at the time of her death. Plaintiff is the only son and only offspring of his mother Kaywood, therefore the sole closest living relative to him, Plaintiff is the only next of kin under Pennsylvania law. There was no will of decedent Kaywood specifying other authority for control of her remains. Plaintiff was neither estranged from his mother nor incompetent and there was no clear and convincing evidence of contrary intent or waiver and agreement,” the suit said.
“Plaintiffs mother was in CCMC for approximately two and a half months, before she passed away at CCMC. Plaintiff visited his mother in the hospital approximately every other day throughout his mother’s hospital stay until she passed away. CCMC called plaintiff numerous times to get consent for all medical procedures, as well as inform him of his mother’s status and prognosis. Plaintiff was present at the time his mother passed away. Plaintiff was in charge of all medical decisions concerning his mother, including but not limited to, a decision for a tracheotomy. Plaintiff is listed by name relationship to decedent phone number and address in the CCMC records as the only emergency contact.”
The suit continued that the plaintiff’s mother passed away on May 12, 2021 and soon afterwards, the plaintiff picked up her medical records from the hospital but did not consent to the release for transfer of his mother’s body – however, this occurred shortly afterwards nonetheless, with his mother’s body being picked up by employees of Gore Funeral Home and then transferred to Earl L. Foster Funeral Home for embalming.
“Sometime shortly after May 12, 2021, the body of plaintiff’s mother, Kaywood, was cremated by defendants Derrick Gore and/or Gore Funeral Home and/or Gore Funeral Services, either by defendant Derrick Gore personally or by agents, servants, workmen and/or employees of defendants Gore Funeral Home and/or Gore Funeral Services. The cremation was performed without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff. Defendants, each of them, knew or should have known that the decedent did not want embalming or cremation and plaintiff did not want embalming or cremation for his mother,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff was the only one to hold the privilege or authority for disposition of the body and that privilege or authority was not transferred to anyone, including defendants. Plaintiff did not authorize any transfer by defendants, CCMC and Crozer, to any other entity, including defendants. Plaintiff did not authorize any transfer by any of the defendants to any other entity, including any of the defendants. Plaintiff did not receive notification from any of the defendants of their intent to release, transfer and/or embalm the body and/or cremate the body. Defendants, each of them, acted with a conscious indifference or reckless disregard of the high risk of causing serious mental distress and physical symptoms.”
Crozer Health defendants filed preliminary objections in the case on July 5, finding that Pennsylvania law does not recognize any of the causes of action brought by the plaintiff.
“Plaintiff in his current complaint alleges that he suffered physical manifestations as a result of his severe emotional distress, in addition to his allegations that he suffered severe emotional distress. Despite such changes in his current and pending complaint, plaintiff still has not alleged any substantive physical injuries and/or damages as a result of the incidents at issue in the pending matter. Because Pennsylvania law rejects causes of action for emotional distress for negligent mishandling of a body, Count II of plaintiff’s complaint must be stricken,” per the objections.
“The averments of conscious indifference, reckless disregard, recklessness, intentional and/or wanton acts and/or omissions on the part of defendants must be stricken from plaintiff’s complaint because they are wholly conclusory and without factual support. While plaintiff has filed a new complaint, no substantively significant additional facts have been averred in this complaint from that in the original complaint in Payne v. Rawls Et.Al, Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, No. CV-2022-001038, to support reinstatement of the claims, or any enlargement of those claims, which were dismissed by the stipulation of the parties, plaintiff’s current complaint sets forth a claim for negligence at best, nothing more. Count III of tortious interference with a dead body must be stricken because said defendants did not commit any acts that could possibly constitute tortious interference with a dead body according to Pennsylvania law. However, plaintiff has not averred sufficient facts to support any wanton conduct on the part of moving defendants.”
On July 8, Gore Funeral Services defendants filed an answer in the complaint, which denied the plaintiff’s allegations in their entirety and provided new matter.
“The plaintiff’s complaint, or parts of it, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, therefore, it should be dismissed pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon information and belief, plaintiff is or may be barred from recovering any amount from answering defendants due to his own contributory negligence and comparative negligence. Answering defendants assert the right of set-off resulting from any amounts recovered by plaintiff, or any other party, for the damages complained of in plaintiff’s complaint. Answering defendants, at all times relevant to the matters alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, conducted itself in a proper, reasonable, lawful, professional and prudent manner,” the answer’s new matter stated.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver, and estoppel. Answering defendants owed no duty to plaintiff. Answering defendants at all relevant times acted in accordance with its professional obligations in a proper, reasonable and prudent manner in accordance with the standard of care applicable to such professionals under the circumstances, and the activities of answering defendants were not a factor to any degree in bringing about or causing the damages alleged in plaintiff’s complaint. The claims of plaintiff, if any, are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred in whole or reduced in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statute.”
The Gore Funeral Services defendants also levied cross-claims against their co-defendants from Crozer Health.
In a July 11 response, the plaintiff resolved that the Gore Funeral Services defendants’ new matter were nothing more than conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading was required.
Likewise, the Crozer Health defendants rejected the cross-claims made against them by their Gore Funeral Services co-defendants.
UPDATE
In preliminary objections filed on July 5, the Crozer Health defendants argued that the plaintiff has not averred sufficient facts to support any wanton conduct on their parts, that there was no wanton mistreatment of his mother’s body by the moving defendants, that the moving defendants did not intentionally remove his mother’s body, that the moving defendants did not withhold his mother’s body and the moving defendants did not operate upon his mother’s body.
Furthermore, the defendants argued that the entire complaint should be stricken.
On Jan. 31, Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge Kelly D. Eckel overruled the objections in the entirety.
“Upon consideration of defendants Prospect Crozer, LLC (trading as “Crozer Health”, “Crozer Chester Medical Center” and “Prospect CCMC, LLC”) and their preliminary objections to the complaint, and plaintiff’s opposition thereto, it is ordered that said preliminary objections are overruled,” Eckel stated.
For multiple counts of negligence, tortious interference with a dead body, invasion of privacy, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages from each of the defendants in excess of $50,000.
The plaintiff is represented by James D. Famiglio of James D. Famiglio, P.C. in Media.
The defendants are represented by Matthew R. Shindell and Min-Sun Kim of Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci and Candice Kearney of Offit Kurman, all in Philadelphia, plus Tracie M. Burns of the Law Office of Tracie M. Burns, in Chester.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2022-003350
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com