Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline And Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tennessee funeral board orders warnings, fines and DA referrals after routine inspections
Summary
At its Jan. 14 meeting the Tennessee Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers accepted legal counsel''s recommendations across multiple complaints, issuing letters of warning or instruction, civil penalties and referrals to district attorneys for repeated unlicensed activity.
The Tennessee Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers reviewed a series of inspection-related complaints Jan. 14 and voted on counsel's recommendations ranging from letters of instruction to civil penalties and referrals to local district attorneys.
Board counsel Mr. Bridal opened the legal report with the first case, saying, "During the course of this routine inspection...we would recommend a letter of warning." The board then moved through multiple complaints involving expired licenses, alleged consumer misrepresentations in preneed matters, incorrect next-of-kin determinations and alleged criminal conduct by a licensed individual.
Why it matters: the board's disciplinary decisions affect licensing status, consumer protections and which matters become criminal referrals. Several penalties were increased by board vote during discussion, and the board directed staff to refer longstanding unlicensed-activity investigations to district attorneys in appropriate jurisdictions.
Most significant actions and supporting details: counsel reported that one inspected establishment had employees listed on a public website without licensing status; the board accepted a letter of warning in that case (complaint 2024-051451). In another matter alleging a staff member stalked a complainant and left a decedent unattended in a chapel van (complaint 2024051601), counsel concluded there was no proof the establishment had violated board rules and the board voted to close the matter and pursue a separate complaint against the employee's license.
A recurring theme throughout the legal report was lapsed licensure. One establishment operated with an expired establishment license from June 30 to Sept. 2, 2024 and wrote 21 funeral contracts during the unlicensed period (complaint 202405321). Counsel recommended a $2,000 civil penalty; the board accepted counsel's recommendation.
Several companion director/establishment cases drew longer debate. For complaint 2024053951, involving an employee whose license lapsed June 30 and who signed two contracts while unlicensed, counsel recommended a $500 penalty against the establishment. Board members argued for stiffer penalties to deter repeat lapses; Mr. Wheeler moved to increase the civil penalty to $750, a motion seconded by Mr. Naylor and adopted by the board.
In the employee-level companion case (2024053971) the board voted to assess a $250 fine on the licensed individual after members noted the respondent had no prior disciplinary history but had practiced while lapsed.
The board also reconsidered a preneed-pricing complaint (2024057471). Counsel initially recommended a letter of warning but, after discussion about how a consumer could reasonably be led to believe a quoted price was "guaranteed," the board voted to issue a letter of instruction that will tell the establishment how to disclose funded vs. unfunded preneed arrangements.
A separate complaint about next-of-kin determinations and incorrect death-certificate information resulting in family dispute (complaint 2024057941) led counsel to recommend a $1,000 civil penalty; the board approved that recommendation.
Counsel reported a large group of complaints (multiple case numbers listed in the record) alleging continued unlicensed activity by a former licensed funeral director. Because of the scope and recurring nature, counsel recommended referring those matters to district attorneys in each applicable jurisdiction; the board accepted the recommendation.
Board members asked staff to monitor outstanding consent orders and penalties to ensure collection and to consider whether civil penalties and fee structures adequately cover the board's investigative and administrative costs.
The board repeatedly distinguished discussion items from formal actions: members debated penalty levels and consumer-protection language, directed staff to pursue DA referrals in multiple cases, and adopted counsel's recommendations by motion for each complaint brought during the legal report.
Ending: The board completed the legal report segment after taking action on each case on the docket and moved to the executive director's financial report.
