Federman v. Christ Hosp.
2013 Ohio 5507
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Decedent died at The Christ Hospital (TCH); her husband, Albert Federman, signed an autopsy authorization form and alleges he selected "COMPLETE (no restrictions)."
- The authorization form listed physicians and clinical diagnoses; hospital pathologists Jonathan Tobias, M.D., and Nathan LeBlanc performed the autopsy; the body was later cremated.
- Federman later received the autopsy report and discovered no neuropathologic examination had been done and that the authorization form had been altered—his "COMPLETE" selection allegedly crossed out and "TRUNK only" marked.
- Federman sued TCH and multiple physicians/entities asserting breach of contract, negligence, intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass to property, tortious interference with a dead body, fraudulent concealment, and bad faith punitive damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court dismissed the complaint and denied Federman’s declaratory-judgment request; Federman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether autopsy authorization created an enforceable contract obligating a complete autopsy | Federman: his signed form (marked "COMPLETE") created a contractual obligation to perform a full autopsy | Defendants: the authorization did not create a contract imposing a legal obligation to perform a complete autopsy | Court: No contract existed; authorization did not impose an enforceable obligation; dismissal proper |
| Whether alleged unauthorized autopsy or alteration of form supports torts like trespass or tortious interference with a dead body | Federman: altering form and failing to examine brain exceeded/violated his authorization and supported tort claims | Defendants: complaint showed failure to perform a complete autopsy, not that they exceeded authorization; no tort pleaded | Court: Allegations do not show an unauthorized intrusion or required elements of those torts; claims fail |
| Whether claims for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress were pleaded sufficiently | Federman: conduct caused severe emotional distress warranting relief | Defendants: facts do not meet legal standards for either claim | Court: Negligent infliction fails (no witnessing or physical peril); intentional infliction fails (no outrageous conduct alleged) |
| Whether defendants fraudulently concealed the autopsy report and whether declaratory relief was appropriate | Federman: hospital concealed report and declaratory relief needed to determine if claims are "medical claims" for affidavit-of-merit rules | Defendants: delay does not equal concealment; court should not issue advisory rulings | Court: Delay is not concealment; court need not give advisory declaratory judgment; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St.3d 134 (negligent-infliction claim requires witnessing or exposure to physical peril)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress: extreme and outrageous conduct)
- Heiner v. Moretuzzo, 73 Ohio St.3d 80 (related to requirements for negligent infliction claims)
- Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1 (failure to rule on a motion is presumed denial)
- State ex rel. Drake v. Athens Cty. Bd. of Elections, 39 Ohio St.3d 40 (no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions when dismissing under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))