Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tennessee funeral board closes or fines several complaints, tables one for further review
Summary
The Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers accepted staff recommendations on seven complaint files: three consent-order fines totaling $1,750, three closures, and one complaint tabled so counsel could review a late response.
The Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers acted on a slate of complaint cases during its meeting, approving staff recommendations that included civil penalties in three matters, closure of three others and tabling one complaint to allow staff additional time to review a belated response.
Legal counsel presented seven complaint files arising from routine inspections and consumer complaints. The board approved counsel’s recommendations by voice vote for the following files:
Votes at a glance
- Complaint 2025027931: Inspector found an employee permitted their funeral director license to lapse (expired 02/28/2025) and continued practice until reinstatement on 03/12/2025; board accepted counsel’s recommendation of a $500 civil penalty, to be handled by consent order or formal hearing if necessary.
- Complaint 2025027941: Same employee as above; during unlicensed period arranged 1 decedent; board accepted counsel’s recommendation of a $250 civil penalty, via consent order or hearing if necessary.
- Complaint 2025033401: Family reported erroneous address on a death certificate; respondent submitted affidavits to correct minor errors and legal recommended closure; the board voted to close the matter.
- Complaint 2025037501: Anonymized complaint alleging the same death-certificate issue raised earlier; legal recommended closure and the board voted to close the file.
- Complaint 2025034811: Establishment’s funeral establishment license expired 02/28/2025 and was not renewed until 04/11/2025; preneed seller registration likewise expired and had not been renewed at the time of audit, though no preneed contracts were sold during the lapse; board accepted counsel’s recommendation of a $1,000 civil penalty, via consent order or hearing if necessary.
- Complaint 2025035001: Former employee alleged unlicensed activity, forged signatures and that an apprentice performed arrangements without a licensed director present; after investigation and follow-up interviews with families and the establishment, legal concluded evidence did not support a finding of violation and recommended closure; the board voted to close the matter.
- Complaint 2025036701: Complainant alleged delays in picking up a decedent, failure to timely provide contracts and a late response to legal’s inquiry; counsel recommended $2,000 in penalties broken down as $1,000 for delayed pickup, $500 for late or missing contract delivery, and $500 for a late response to the complaint file. Counsel also advised the board the respondent’s written response arrived late (the afternoon before the meeting) and that staff had not had sufficient time to evaluate its contents. The board voted to table complaint 2025036701 to allow counsel time to review the late response; the motion to table passed on a voice vote with one recorded “no.”
Legal counsel summarized the investigatory steps taken in each file, including interviews with families, review of death-certificate filings and comparisons of signatures where forgery was alleged. In the matter alleging forged signatures and unlicensed activity, the board’s investigator and counsel told members they compared client files and interviewed available family members; legal concluded that, while some signatures warranted “pause,” they were not inconsistent enough to demonstrate clear forgery and that the evidence did not support a violation.
Counsel told the board that late responses to complaint inquiries are violations of board procedure and factored into penalty calculations. “It is a violation if you send a response in the fifteenth day,” counsel said, while also acknowledging staff had attempted outreach and had sometimes received responses after the two-week window.
Ending
Board members voted on each recommendation individually; items resulting in fines were authorized via consent order or formal hearing if needed, while others were closed administratively. One complex file was tabled so counsel can fully review a late response before the board takes a final action.
