Tennessee Funeral Board closes or sanctions multiple license complaints, increases several civil penalties

The Tennessee Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers on Jan. 14 considered a slate of complaints arising from routine inspections and consumer reports dated from 2021 through 2024 and took a mix of closures, warnings, monetary penalties and referrals to local prosecutors.

Legal counsel presented each complaint and the board opened the floor for discussion before voting on counsel’s recommendations. Several cases concerned employees or managers performing duties while their funeral director or embalmer licenses or the establishment license had lapsed; the board generally moved to impose civil penalties in those matters and to keep records of letters or warnings when appropriate.

Why it matters: the board’s decisions set enforcement precedents for how missed renewals, consumer-preneed disputes and alleged unlicensed practice are handled statewide and affect how funeral establishments and licensed practitioners manage compliance and consumer disclosures.

What the board decided

- Several complaints alleging practice during lapsed licensure resulted in increased fines from staff recommendations. In one establishment case (inspection Sept. 18, 2024) the board increased the recommended civil penalty from $500 to $750 after members said higher fines could deter repeat lapses. The board also imposed fines on the individual practitioners tied to those lapses (one $250 penalty in a separate motion for the individual who signed two contracts while lapsed). The board justified some increases as consistency with multiple recent similar cases.

- A complaint about employees mislabelled on an establishment website was closed with a letter of warning after counsel reported the respondent corrected the website the day of inspection.

- The board accepted counsel’s recommendation to close multiple complaints where the evidence did not show an establishment-level violation and where the licensing obligation lay with individual licensees.

- A consumer dispute about a purportedly guaranteed preneed price (October 2021) resulted in the board changing counsel’s recommended letter of warning to a letter of instruction; members asked staff to make the letter explicit about how to document funded vs. unfunded preneed arrangements and how to mark guarantees so consumers are not misled.

- One complaint alleging that a respondent accepted arrangements while incorrect next-of-kin information remained on the death certificate resulted in a $1,000 civil penalty as counsel recommended.

- A set of numerous complaints involving a former licensed funeral director and allegations of ongoing unlicensed activity were referred to the appropriate district attorneys for potential criminal enforcement; counsel said sworn statements and evidence will be provided to prosecutors and that the department will stay engaged as requested by prosecutors.

Board discussion and process notes

Board members and counsel repeatedly noted that the department sends multiple renewal notices and that licensees have a 90-day reinstatement window with a statutory late fee. Several members urged stiffer penalties to reduce recurring license-lapse cases, emphasizing that the department’s outreach diminishes some common excuses such as spam-filtered emails or payment-system timing.

Counsel explained the legal reporting obligation cited in one matter as a board rule (066 0-01-0.031, section I) and noted that reporting convictions is an obligation of the licensee, not the establishment, when that was relevant to the recommended disposition.

Votes at a glance (selected items)

- Complaint 2024-051451 — inspector found employees not properly identified by licensing status; board accepted counsel’s recommendation and issued a letter of warning (motion carried).

- Complaint 2024051601 — allegations involving an employee arrested for stalking and a question whether the establishment should have reported the arrest; board accepted counsel’s recommendation to close the establishment-level complaint and directed the opened complaint against the individual licensee to remain under investigation (motion carried).

- Complaint 2024053951 (establishment) — establishment operated while its establishment license had expired (license expired June 30, 2024; 21 contracts written during lapse). Counsel recommended a $2,000 civil penalty via consent order; after discussion the board amended the recommendation and voted to impose a $750 civil penalty on the establishment (motion carried). The related individual practitioner complaint tied to the same lapse was later assessed a $250 civil penalty for signing two contracts while lapsed (motion carried).

- Complaint 2024053971 / 2024053991 / 2024053981 — related matters about managers or managers’ licenses lapsing while contracts were written; the board raised recommended penalties for consistency and imposed $500 civil penalties in those manager/establishment-linked matters (motions carried).

- Complaint 2024057471 — preneed/price-disclosure dispute stemming from a 2021 estimate that a complainant later believed to be a guaranteed price; the board changed counsel’s recommended letter of warning to a letter of instruction that will set out clear documentation practices for funded vs. unfunded preneed arrangements (motion carried).

- Complaint 2024057941 — allegation that an establishment permitted a grandmother to act as primary informant and then failed to reassign next-of-kin status to the decedent’s children when appropriate, producing incorrect death-certificate information; the board imposed a $1,000 civil penalty (motion carried).

- Multiple complaints against a former licensed funeral director (several complaint numbers listed) — after investigators collected sworn statements and other evidence, counsel recommended referral to district attorneys in appropriate jurisdictions and the board approved referral for potential criminal prosecution (motion carried).

What the board did not do

The board repeatedly distinguished between matters where the licensee (individual) bears the reporting or reinstatement obligation and matters where an establishment has an independent duty. Where evidence was insufficient to show an establishment violated the rules, the board accepted counsel’s recommendation to close the establishment-level complaint and pursue any individual-licensee matters separately.

Ending

Board members said they will continue monitoring recurring lapse cases and the staff and counsel said they will refine consumer-facing guidance (and the letter of instruction created in the preneed case) to reduce future misunderstandings about estimates versus guaranteed preneed pricing.