Sep 10 2007 Clerk of Court Supreme Court of Ohio Table of Contents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO MARK ALBRECHT, etc., et al., CASE NO. 07-0507 Plaintiffs-Respondents, vs. On certified question of state law from the United States District Court, Southern BRIAN TREON, M.D., et al. District of Ohio, Western Division Case No. 1:06-CV-00274 Defendants-Petitioners. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE OF MONREAL FUNERAL HOME IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS MARK ALBRECHT, et al. Thomas L. Blust, Esq. (#0022166) Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. (#000548 1) Elizabeth Mason, Esq. (#0051967) Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. (#0079204) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN Co, LPA CLERMONT COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE 60 South Park Place CIVIL DIVISION Painesville, Ohio 44077 Administration Building, 3d Floor, Suite 313 (440) 352-3391 (440) 352-3469 fax 101 East Main Street [email protected] Batavia, Ohio 45103 (513) 732-7899 (513) 732-8171 fax John H. Metz, Esq. (#0019039) kshelton@co. clermont. oh. us 4400 Carew Tower 441 Vine Street Attorney for Defendants-Petitioners Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3016 (513) 241-8844 (513) 241-6090 fax [email protected] Dated: September 10, 2007 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Respondents F DD SEP 10 2007 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities .............. ......................................................................................................... ii Interest of Amicus Curiae ................................................................................................................1 Statement of the Case .......................................................................................................................2 Law and Argument ..........................................................................................................................3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................3 "Remains" of the Decedent Encompasses the Entire Person, Including Organs .......................5 Constitutional Protection ...........................................................................................................6 Property or "Quasi"-Property Rights .........................................................................................8 Tort and Statutory Protection ...................................................................................................11 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................13 Certificate of Service .....................................................................................................................16 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Arnaud v. Odom, (5th Cir. 1989), 870 F.2d 304 ............................................................................. 7 Barela v. Frank, (N.M. 1960), 67 N.M. 319 ................................................................................... 8 Bauer v. N. Fulton Med. Ctr., (Ga. Ct. App. 1999), 241 Ga. App. 568 .......................................... 8 Brotherton v. Cleveland, (6' Cir. 1991), 923 F.2d 477 .............................................................. 3, 8 Brown v. Matthews Mortuary, (Idaho 1990), 118 Idaho 830 ....................................................... 12 Buel v. Mirchandani, (Phila. Co. CP 1992), 24 Phila. 393 ........................................................... 10 Carney v. Knollwood Cemetery Ass'n, (Cuy. Cty, App., 1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 31 ............... 5, 12 Crocker v. Pleasant, (Fla. 2001), 778 So.2d 978 ........................................................................ 6, 7 Culpepper v. Pearl St. Bldg. Inc., (Colo., 1994), 877 P.2d 877 .................................................... 12 Emeagwali v. Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., (NY Misc. 2006), N.Y. Slip. Op 50221 U ........................... 1 I Everman v. Davis ( 1989), 54 Ohio App.3d 119 ...................... ..................................................... 13 Fuller v. Marx, (gc, Ctr. 1984), 724 F.2d 717 ............................................................................... 13 Geiges v. Rosko, (Pa. C.P. 1987), 1987 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 55 ..... ............................... 8 Goldman v. Mollen, (Va. 1937), 168 Va. 345 ........................................................................:........ 8 Guth v. Freeland, (Haw. 2001), 96 Haw. 147 .............................................................................. 12 Hainey v. Parrot (S.D. Ohio, 2005), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44837 .............................................. 4 Herzl Congregation v. Robinson, (Wash. 1927), 142 Wash. 469 ................................................... 9 Janicki v. Hospital of St. Raphael, (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999), 46 Conn. Supp. 204 ...................... 1 I Leno v. St. Joseph Hospital, (I11. 1973), 55 III.2d 114 .................................................................. 12 Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., ( 1982) 458 U.S. 419 ........................................ 6 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hall, (Ky. 1927), 219 Ky. 528 .............................................................. 12 Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Wilson, (Ga. 1905), 51 S.E. 24 .............................................. 15 Mansaw v. Midwest Organ Bank, (W.D. Mo. 1998), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10307 .................... 7 Martin v. Kim, (D. Ind. 2005), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20595 ....................................................... 7 Massey v. Duke Univ., (N.C. Ct. App. 1998) 130 N.C. App. 461 ......... ................................... 9, 11 McPosey v. Sisters of Sorrowful Mother, (Okla. 1936), 177 Okla. 52 ......................................... 12 Mexican v. Circle Bear, (S.D. 1985), 370 N.W.2d 737 .................................................................. 8 Neese v. Sturtevant, (Va. Cir. Ct. 1959), 46 Va. Cir. 473 ............................................................... 8 Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran, (9`h Cir. 2002), 287 F.3d 786 .............. .......................................... 6 Painter v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., (M.D. 1914), 123 Md. 301 ............................. 9 Papieves v. Kelly, (Pa. 1970), 437 Pa. 373 ................................................................................... 10 Parker v. Quinn-McGowen Co., (N.C. 1964) 262 N.C. 560 .......................................................... 9 Perry v. Saint Francis Hosp & Medical Ctr., (D. Kan., 1995), 886 F.Supp. 1551 ...................... 11 Pierce v. Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery, (R.I. 1872);10 R.I. 227 . ....................................... 8 Rollins v. Phillips, (Alab. 1989), 554 So.2d 1006 .................................................................... 9, 11 Sanford v. Ware, (Va. 1950) 191 Va. 43 ...................................................................................... 10 Simpkins v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 200 S.C. 228 (S.C. 1942) ........................................ 8 State v. Powell, (Fla. 1986), 497 So.2d 1188 .................................................................................. 7 Travelers Ins. Co. v. Smith, (Ark. 1999), 338 Ark. 81 .................................................................. 10 Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Turner Funeral Home, (E.D. Tenn. 2003), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27205 ....................................................................................................................................... 8,9 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Teague (Miss. 1918), 117 Miss. 401 .................................................... 5 Whaley v. County of Tuscola, (6't' Cir. 1995) 58 F.3d 1111 ....................................................... 7, 8 ii Whitehair v. Highland Memory Gardens, (W. Va. 1985), 174 W. Va. 458 ................................. 1 I Statutes Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-434 ............................................................................................................... 13 R.C. 313.123(B) .............................................................................................................................. 2 R.C. 3705.01(C) ........................................................................................................................ 5, 14 Other Authorities Judge Dlott's March 12, 2007 Order Granting Motions to Certify a Question to the Ohio Supreme Court ........................................................................................................................ 2, 3 Michelle Bray, Personalizing Personadty: Toward a Property Right in Human Bodies (1990), 69 Tex. L. Rev. 209 ......................................................................................................................... 9 iii I. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE This case is about whether the Albrechts had an interest in the organs of their deceased son such that they should have been told that his body released to them for burial after autopsy was missing his brain, which had been discarded as "medical waste" by the coroner. The question thus presented here, whether the next of kin have a protectable interest in the organs of their deceased kin, is an issue that affects not only the Albrechts, but anyone who has ever lost a loved one. The Petitioners' and their Amici's answer to this question in the negative, and their callous referral to the body and parts of loved ones as "dead carcasses" is an insult to all persons and organizations who go to great lengths to guarantee that every reasonable