UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Civil File:

Transcription

1 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Jennifer Huber, Tiffany Frost, Lindsey Frost, and Whitley Huber, Plaintiffs, Civil File: COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND vs. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research d/b/a The Mayo Clinic and Ranfranz and Vine, Inc. d/b/a/ Ranfranz and Funeral Home, Defendants. Plaintiffs Jennifer Huber, Tiffany Frost, Lindsey Frost and Whitley Huber, by and through the undersigned attorneys, for their Complaint and causes of action against Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research d/b/a The Mayo Clinic ( Mayo Clinic ) and Ranfranz and Vine, Inc. d/b/a/ Ranfranz and Vine Funeral Home ( Ranfranz and Vine ) state and allege as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Jennifer Huber is a resident of the City of Alma Wisconsin residing at S1564 State Road 37, Alma, WI She is the widow of Anthony Huber who died at Defendant Mayo Clinic on May 21, 2015 and was cremated at Defendant Ranfranz and Vine Funeral Home. At all times relevant hereto, Jennifer Huber was a resident of the State of Wisconsin.

2 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of Plaintiff Tiffany Frost is a resident of the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She is the daughter of Plaintiff Jennifer Huber and was raised from the time she was a toddler by decedent Anthony Huber as if she was his daughter. At all times relevant hereto, Tiffany Frost was a resident of the State of Wisconsin. 3. Plaintiff Lindsey Frost is a resident of the City of Alma Wisconsin residing at S1564 State Road 37, Alma, WI She is the daughter of Plaintiff Jennifer Huber and was raised from the time she was a baby by decedent Anthony Huber as if she was his daughter. At all times relevant hereto, Lindsey Frost was a resident of the State of Wisconsin. 4. Plaintiff Whitley Huber is a resident of the City of Alma Wisconsin residing at S1564 State Road 37, Alma, WI She is the biological daughter of Plaintiff Jennifer Huber and decedent Anthony Huber. At all times relevant hereto, Whitley Huber was a resident of the State of Wisconsin. 5. At all times herein relevant, the Defendant Ranfranz and Vine, Inc. was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with its principle place of business at 5421 Royal Place NW, Rochester, Minnesota 55901, and was doing business as Ranfranz and Vine Funeral Home. 6. On information and belief, Defendant Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with its principle place of business at 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, and was doing business as The Mayo Clinic. 2

3 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 16 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C because there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and because the amount in controversy exceeds seventyfive thousand ($75,000) Dollars, exclusive of costs and interest. 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) and (2), venue in this District is appropriate because the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and maintain contacts in this district sufficient to subject them to personal jurisdiction and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. ALLEGATIONS 9. Mr. Anthony Huber, age 40, was brought to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota on May 10, 2015 for treatment of a head injury he sustained when he fell down a flight of stairs at home in Alma, Wisconsin. 10. On May 21, 2015, he passed away while at the Mayo Clinic. The cause of death was listed on the Certificate of Death as Complications of Blunt Force Head Injury. 11. Mr. Huber s body was brought to the morgue at the Mayo Clinic where it was held until an autopsy was performed. Mr. Huber s family instructed Defendant Mayo Clinic that the body was to be released to the Talbot Funeral Home of Alma, Wisconsin. Talbot Funeral home was going to prepare the body for viewing and Christian Burial in accordance with the wishes of the decedent and the family, including the Plaintiffs herein. 3

4 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 4 of On information and belief, all corpses at Mayo Clinic go to central morgue location. When a funeral home arrives to take a body, Mayo Clinic staff retrieves the body. Mayo Clinic staff and the funeral home personnel than each check the identification tag on the zipper of the body bag and on the arm band of the corpse to positively identify the body that is being released and taken away. Paperwork is then signed by both Mayo Clinic staff and funeral home personal recording the release of the body. 13. According to a letter dated July 23, 2015 from the Defendant Mayo Clinic to Plaintiff Jennifer Huber violated its own internal procedures with regard to the release of the body of Mr. Huber, which procedures are designed to make sure the wrong body is not released. That letter states: [a]t the morgue, Mr. Huber's body was placed in a cooler to be held until the autopsy. Staff marked the cooler location and name on the whiteboard used to chart the spaces in the cooler, Mr. Huber's identity was confirmed prior to autopsy and the autopsy was completed. After the autopsy, Mr. Huber's body went to a different location in the cooler but the whiteboard did not reflect the new location. When [Defendant] Ranfranz and Vine arrived for transport of another patient, because of the change in cooler location, [Mr. Huber s] body was removed instead. Although Mayo Clinic and the funeral home routinely check the identifiers to be sure they have the correct patient, in this case, Mr. Huber's identity was not verified before release. The error was recognized when Talbot Funeral Home called to make transportation arrangements. (emphasis added). 4

5 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 5 of On information and belief, once in possession of a body that is to be cremated, a funeral home will check the identifying characteristics of the body of which they are aware, including tattoos, medical implants, such as pace makers, etc. The funeral home will also double check the identification on the body bag zipper tag and the arm band on the corpse. 15. According to the July 23, 2015 letter from Defendant Mayo Clinic to Plaintiff Jennifer Huber: Ranfranz and Vine described their process as follows: A body is transported to their facility in a body bag with an identifying tag. The body is transferred to an area in the cremation facility where it remains until the time of cremation. The identification label on the body bag is removed and placed on the cremation chamber where the body is held. The name from the label is also written on a separate place on the cremation chamber. Paperwork is completed and tagged. 16. At some point after the Mayo Clinic wrongfully, mistakenly, and negligently released the body of Mr. Huber to Ranfranz and Vine, Ranfranz and Vine wrongfully, mistakenly and negligently cremated the body of Mr. Huber without the knowledge of, or permission of, Mr. Huber s family, including the Plaintiffs herein, in direct contradiction of the wishes of the decedent and his family, including the Plaintiff s herein, and in violation of the religious beliefs of the decedent and his family, including the Plaintiff s herein. 17. On information and belief, Defendant Ranfranz and Vine could not have followed its standard procedures or it would have been impossible for it to have cremated 5

6 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 6 of 16 Mr. Huber s body since it would have recognized from the identification tag on the body bag and the arm band that the body it was holding was that of Mr. Huber and not that of the person it thought it was cremating. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Tortious Interferrence With The Desired Disposition Of A Corpse (As to The Mayo Clinic) 18. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations complained within the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if again set forth in their entirety here. 19. Under Minnesota law, Plaintiffs have a right of possession of the decedent s body for preservation and burial. Gooch v. North Country Regional Hospital, 2006 WL , *2 (Minn. App. March 28, 2006); Larson v. Chase, 50 N.W. 238, 239 (Minn. 1891). 20. Where a wrongful act constitutes infringement of this right, mental suffering may be recovered. Gooch at *2; Larson at Defendant Mayo Clinic acted with reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs right to possession of the body for dignified burial constituting wanton conduct. 22. Examples of its reckless and wonton conduct include: a. Failing to return the body to the proper location in the morgue; b. Failing to change the whiteboard in the morgue to reflect the proper location of the body; c. Failing to check the identification tag on the zipper of the body bag; 6

7 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 7 of 16 d. Failing to check the identification arm band on the decedent s body; e. Allowing Defendant Ranfranz and Vine to remove the body from the Mayo premises without proper identification checks of the body by Ranfranz and Vine personal; f. Failure to properly complete the paperwork required before the body should have been allowed to be taken; g. Failure to discover that the wrong body had been given to Defendant Ranfranz and Vine until after the body had been cremated; h. and other acts of reckless and wonton conduct too numerous to mention herein. 23. As a result of Defendant Mayo Clinic s tortious interference with the Plaintiffs desired disposition of the corpse of Anthony Huber, as described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered emotional injury and other damages in an amount in excess of $75,000 and to be determined by a jury upon trial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Tortious Interferrence With The Desired Disposition Of A Corpse (As to Ranfranz and Vine) 24. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations complained within the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if again set forth in their entirety here. 7

8 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 8 of Under Minnesota law, Plaintiffs have a right of possession of the decedent s body for preservation and burial. Gooch v. North Country Regional Hospital, 2006 WL , *2 (Minn. App. March 28, 2006); Larson v. Chase, 50 N.W. 238, 239 (Minn. 1891). 26. Where a wrongful act constitutes infringement of this right, mental suffering may be recovered. Gooch at *2; Larson at Defendant Ranfranz and Vine acted with reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs right to possession of the body for dignified burial constituting wanton conduct. 28. Examples of its reckless and wonton conduct include: a. Failing to check the identification tag on the zipper of the body bag when removing the body from the Mayo Clinic; b. Failing to check the identification arm band on the decedent s body when removing the body from the Mayo Clinic; c. Failing to properly complete the paperwork required before removing the body from the Mayo Clinic; d. Failing to check the identification tag on the zipper of the body bag at any time after the body was removed from the Mayo Clinic, including any time before cremating the body; 8

9 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 9 of 16 e. Failing to check the identification arm band at any time after the body was removed from the Mayo Clinic, including any time before cremating the body; f. Failing to write the name from the identification label on a separate place on the cremation chamber; g. Failing to properly complete the required paperwork at the funeral home before cremating the body; h. Failure to discover that the wrong body had been taken from the Mayo Clinic until after the body had been cremated; i. Failure to get permission of the Huber family before cremating the body; j. and other acts of reckless and wonton conduct too numerous to mention herein. 29. As a result of Defendant Ranfranz and Vine s tortious interference with the Plaintiffs desired disposition of the corpse of Anthony Huber, as described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered emotional injury and other damages in an amount in excess of $75,000 and to be determined by a jury upon. 9

10 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 10 of 16 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence (as to Mayo Clinic) 30. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations complained within the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if again set forth in their entirety here. 31. One who negligently removes the body of a dead person or prevents its proper interment is subject to liability to a member of the family of the deceased who is entitled to the disposition of the body. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) TORTS 868 (1977). 32. Defendant Mayo Clinic was negligent in allowing the decedent s body to be released to the wrong funeral home and cremated. 33. Examples of its negligence include: a. Failing to return the body to the proper location in the morgue; b. Failing to change the whiteboard in the morgue to reflect the proper location of the body; c. Failing to check the identification tag on the zipper of the body bag; d. Failing to check the identification arm band on the decedent s body; e. Allowing Defendant Ranfranz and Vine to remove the body from the Mayo premises without proper identification checks of the body by Ranfranz and Vine personal; 10

11 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 11 of 16 f. Failure to properly complete the paperwork required before the body should have been allowed to be taken; g. Failure to discover that the wrong body had been given to Defendant Ranfranz and Vine until after the body had been cremated; h. and Mayo Clinic was otherwise negligent in ways too numerous to mention herein. 34. As a result of Defendant Mayo Clinic s negligence and negligent interference with the Plaintiffs desired disposition of the corpse of Anthony Huber, as described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered emotional injury and other damages in an amount in excess of $75,000 and to be determined by a jury upon trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence (as to Ranfranz and Vine) 35. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations complained within the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if again set forth in their entirety here. 36. One who negligently removes the body of a dead person or prevents its proper interment is subject to liability to a member of the family of the deceased who is entitled to the disposition of the body. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) TORTS 868 (1977). 37. Defendant Ranfranz and Vine was negligent in allowing the decedent s body to be released to the wrong funeral home and cremated. 11

12 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 12 of Examples of its negligence include: a. Failing to check the identification tag on the zipper of the body bag when removing the body from the Mayo Clinic; b. Failing to check the identification arm band on the decedent s body when removing the body from the Mayo Clinic; c. Failing to properly complete the paperwork required before removing the body from the Mayo Clinic; d. Failing to check the identification tag on the zipper of the body bag at any time after the body was removed from the Mayo Clinic, including any time before cremating the body; e. Failing to check the identification arm band at any time after the body was removed from the Mayo Clinic, including any time before cremating the body; f. Failing to write the name from the identification label on a separate place on the cremation chamber; g. Failing to properly complete the required paperwork at the funeral home before cremating the body; h. Failure to discover that the wrong body had been taken from the Mayo Clinic until after the body had been cremated; i. Failure to get permission of the Huber family before cremating the body; 12

13 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 13 of 16 j. and Ranfranz and Vine was otherwise negligent in ways too numerous to mention herein. 39. As a result of Defendant Ranfranz and Vine s negligence and negligent interference with the Plaintiffs desired disposition of the corpse of Anthony Huber, as described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered emotional injury and other damages in an amount in excess of $75,000 and to be determined by a jury upon trial. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Interference With A Property Right (Against Each Defendant) 40. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations complained within the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if again set forth in their entirety here. 41. Plaintiffs have a property right in the decedent s body which was abridged by Defendants wrongful conduct as described herein. 42. As a result of Defendants interference with the property right that Plaintiffs had in the corpse of Anthony Huber, Plaintiffs were unable to provide the desired dignified burial, as described herein, and have suffered emotional injury and other damages in an amount in excess of $75,000 and to be determined by a jury upon trial. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Implied Contract (Against Mayo Clinic) 43. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations complained within the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if again set forth in their 13

14 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 14 of 16 entirety here. 44. Plaintiff had an implied contract with Defendant Mayo Clinic requiring Defendant Mayo Clinic to properly preserve decedent s body and deliver it as directed by Plaintiffs. 45. Defendant Mayo Clinic breached that implied contract. 46. As a result of Defendant Mayo Clinic s breach of its implied contract with Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs were unable to provide the desired dignified burial, as described herein, and have suffered emotional injury and other damages in an amount in excess of $75,000 and to be determined by a jury upon trial. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants, and each of them, as follows: a. An award of damages; b. Pre-verdict and post-verdict interest; c. An award of Plaintiffs attorney fees, and costs and disbursements incurred in this action; and d. Other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 14

15 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 15 of 16 Dated: March 24, 2016 BENNEROTTE & ASSOCIATES, P.A. By: s/ Vincent J. Moccio Vincent J. Moccio (#184640) 3085 Justice Way, Suite 200 Eagan, Minnesota (651) vincent@bennerotte.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 15

16 CASE 0:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/24/16 Page 16 of 16 16