“Cremation has more steps where something can go wrong than does burial. It is unforgiving.”

–Daniel M. Isard, “What Every Funeral Director and Cemeterian Should Know About Cremation”

  I was at a regulatory state board meeting to represent the state association on ways we can keep our members informed. There were three complaints before the board. All dealt with cremation issues. There were not any sensational stories (though one has a potential to be). They were funeral directors dealing with families requesting, or I should say declaring, their desire for the simplest form of cremation. One firm was controlled by a corporation, two were independently owned.

  The race to the bottom to secure the consumers of the lowest cost cremation continues in a vigorous battle in growing parts of the nation. Some firms have had to finally set their prices at a rate to cover their operating costs while others continue to offer lower cremation fees to gather numbers; numbers that rarely add up to meet the cost of their overhead.

  Those serving high cremation markets commonly say, “It is not the solid mahogany casket family that will sue you, it’s the low cost direct cremation family.”

  Why? You pay attention to those who purchase larger ticket items, that is natural; but to your peril. It is the direct or minimum service family that feels ignored and is more sensitive to slighted service.

  The liability of cremations, as we know, is high. A buried body can be removed from a grave and transferred; you cannot undo a cremation. Where do you need your focus in a changing market?

  One complaint dealt with non-existing cremation pre-needs. A low cost cremation provider sold the assets of his business to an existing funeral director on a handshake. When the purchaser began to audit the pre-funded accounts, he found signed applications but no funding. One of the insured, a veteran, discovered that his cremation policy was not funded and contacted the state regulatory board. The purchaser alleges that $10-12,000 of prepaid funerals do not show a deposit. There have been several deaths already but the purchaser has covered those and will cover anyone who shows proof of a signed contract.

  When the selling funeral director was asked how, allegedly, these funds, paid by credit card, ended up being deposited into his personal account, he replied: “I don’t know.”

  That complaint will continue into the next month’s state board meeting with the attorney general’s office and the insurance commissioner’s office advised of these allegations.

  The second complaint was by a daughter, who had her mother directly cremated and wished to have her remains inurned with her husband in the national cemetery. Five and a half years later, the national cemetery contacted the daughter to approve the new marker. She complained to the board as she could not accept that her mother was “collecting dust on a shelf” rather than being properly placed in the cemetery. She was gracious in not seeking vengeance but asking for a solution for any other family who entrusts a funeral home to carry out their duty to the dead. The inefficiency of procedures was reviewed and no penalties were given. No funeral home wants that type of exposure and record of complaint.

  The last grievance was one that had a long road of events to get there, but could happen in many funeral home situations.

  The senior mother of two grown children came to visit her daughter for Thanksgiving. She felt unwell the day before the holiday. She was admitted to a local hospital and underwent a battery of tests. The tests were being sent back and forth between specialists. Thanksgiving Day began the rapid decline in her condition. The various specialists consulted felt that her condition would wait another day. The hospitalist doctor did not seem to comprehend the test results and would communicate with the other physicians. Her daughter sat with her while pushing the hospital staff for answers. The patient told her daughter to go home, have the Thanksgiving dinner she had prepared and come back in the morning. Her son, in active military abroad, spoke to her in the early evening. The patient died suddenly shortly before midnight of an aneurysm that probably could have been dealt with on any other day than Thanksgiving. The staff kept telling the family, “after all, it is a holiday.”

  The family selected a funeral home from a list presented to them by the hospital. They made their choice and the removal from the place of death was made. The funeral home indicated that visual identification was required and the family wished to see their mother prior to cremation. The funeral home representative mentioned to the family that simple preparation would be done such as closing her eyes and mouth and simple grooming. The daughter stated that she clearly mentioned that the family had serious questions about her hospital care and asked that “no fluids be removed,” as her abdomen was filled with edema. 

  The funeral home’s care center, where the deceased was at, was a different facility. The embalmer at the care center saw the decedent exuding some fluids, saw a “simple preparation, yet no embalming” authorization, that included aspiration, had been executed by phone authorization, and was signed by the funeral director.

  The family viewed their mother and was pleased in her presentation. They had also arranged for a private autopsy to follow with a recommended forensic pathologist allegedly recommended by the funeral home.

  When the pathologist performed the autopsy, he was unable to determine a reconstruction of the physical decline and possible aneurysm defects due to unnecessarily vigorous aspiration. A family could not get answers to the aneurysm and care issues.

  The funeral director and funeral home received penalties from the regulatory board.

  This was a simple communication failure where the family did not receive a clear explanation of the simple care was explained (they claim they had would have refused). A possibly crucial hereditary medical condition was not known due to the damage done by an allegedly un-agreed to aspiration procedure.

  This was not an intentionally malicious or negligent act. It was an oversight by the funeral director to downplay the graphic description of what they need to do to allow a decent viewing.

  The other most common extreme liability “oversight” is the deceased being cremated before a desired viewing. Not criminal negligence, but poor office procedures and lack of procedural documentation.

  The simplest requested services commonly contain the most litigious issues.

  Those seeking the least of services seem to be the most disconnected. They are the first to complain about price, the first to suspect malfeasance and ultimately the least loyal customer.

  “Through our collective shortcomings, funeral directors may have contributed more to the rise of cremation and immediate disposition than Denning (Founder of the Neptune Society) and Weber (founder of Telophase) combined.”

–Michael W. Kubasak, “Cremation and the Funeral Director”