Karen Waeschle v. Ljubisa Dragovic, M.D.
687 F.3d 292
6th Cir.2012Background
- Waeschle's mother died; autopsy conducted by Oakland County Medical Examiner; brain retained and later incinerated during lawful investigation; Waeschle was unaware of brain retention; she sued Oakland County and the Medical Examiner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process violation; district court certified a Michigan-certified question and later granted summary judgment after Michigan Supreme Court answered the certified question in the Decedent's brain disposition context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether next of kin have a property interest in a decedent's brain after lawful removal. | Waeschle asserts a protected property interest allowing disposal. | Michigan law does not confer such property interest after lawful removal. | No property interest under Michigan law. |
| Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's answer forecloses Waeschle's due process claim. | Waeshle relies on continued due process argument. | Question answered; no remaining right to dispose. | Michigan Supreme Court answer forecloses due process claim. |
| Whether sanctions against Waeschle and counsel were proper for frivolous appeal. | Appeal raised nonfrivolous arguments against controlling precedent. | Appeal lacked reasonable chance to alter district court judgment. | Sanctions denied; admonition issued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Albrecht v. Treon, 617 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 2010) (controls most issues; state-law property rule applied)
- Whaley v. County of Tuscola, 58 F.3d 1111 (6th Cir. 1995) (pre- certification context; not substantive Michigan rule-change)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1982) (property entitlement grounded in state law)
- In re Certified Question from U.S. District Court for Eastern Dist. of Mich., 793 N.W.2d 560 (Mich. 2010) (Michigan Supreme Court answer on decedent's brain disposal rights)
- Brotherton v. Cleveland, M.D., 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir. 1991) (eye/cornea donation context; distinguishable from brain removal )
- Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (fundamental-right analysis caveat; not raised here)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. Healthcare Benefits Plan v. Durden, 448 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2006) (exceptional-circumstance basis for considering arguments)
- Tareco Props, Inc. v. Morriss, 321 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2003) (frivolous-appeal standard; sanctions standard)