Tennessee funeral board issues fines, warnings and referrals after routine inspections

The Tennessee Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers on Jan. 14 accepted a slate of legal recommendations on consumer-complaint and inspection matters, imposing fines in multiple cases, issuing a letter of instruction in a preneed pricing dispute, and referring a group of recurring unlicensed-practice complaints to local district attorneys.

Mister Bryant, board counsel, told members that the cases reviewed arose from routine inspections and complainant filings and that his office’s recommendations ranged from closure to civil penalties and letters of instruction. “Based on the information provided by complainant, there is no proof that respondent establishment has violated any applicable laws or rules,” Bryant said in the course of explaining one closure. In other matters he recommended civil penalties where inspectors found businesses or employees provided services while licenses were expired.

Why it matters: board enforcement decisions affect consumer protections for families using funeral services and send regulatory signals to licensees about recurring compliance issues, including the panel’s concern about multiple recent lapses in license renewals.

Most significant outcomes

- Complaint 2024-051451: the board accepted counsel’s recommendation of a letter of warning after an inspection found employees listed on a respondent’s website without clear licensing status; board record showed the respondent corrected the listings the day of the inspection.

- Complaint 2024051601: counsel recommended closure; the board voted to close the matter.

- Complaint 202405321 (establishment license expired June 30, 2024): counsel recommended a $2,000 civil penalty by consent order; the board accepted counsel’s recommendation.

- Complaint 2024053951 (employee allowed licenses to lapse and continued to work): counsel recommended a $500 civil penalty for the establishment; the board increased that penalty to $750.

- Related employee complaint 2024053971 (funeral director whose licenses lapsed and who signed two contracts while unlicensed): the board assessed a $250 civil penalty for the individual (motion and vote recorded during the meeting).

- Multiple cases involving managers or employees with lapsed licenses (complaints listed in the meeting as 2024053981, 2024053991, 2024057091 and others): in several instances the board increased counsel’s recommended civil penalties to $500 for establishments or managers to reflect multiple violations (the board stated this was in part to be consistent across similar cases and to discourage recurring lapses).

- Preneed pricing complaint 2024057471: counsel initially recommended a letter of warning after documentation showed a 2021 statement of funeral goods and services was not a signed, binding contract; after discussion the board instead voted to issue a letter of instruction requiring clearer disclosures in future preneed interactions so that consumers understand whether prices are guaranteed or estimates.

- Complaint 2024057941 (alleged failure to assign next-of-kin): board accepted counsel’s recommendation to impose a $1,000 civil penalty authorized via consent order after counsel concluded the respondent had designated a grandmother as primary informant and did not reassess next-of-kin status when children of the decedent became known.

- Referral to prosecutors: legal identified a set of complaints (including case numbers 2021037061, 2021037081, 2021026541, 2021015561, 2021015581, 2021020121, 2022044371, 2022021381, 2023029901, 2023029921) alleging recurring unlicensed activity by a former licensed funeral director. The board voted to close those administrative dockets and refer the investigative materials and sworn statements to the district attorney in the appropriate jurisdictions for possible criminal prosecution.

Discussion highlights and rationale

Board members repeatedly raised concern about the frequency of expired-license cases and the explanations offered by licensees (for example, missed emails, problems with the online renewal portal, or unfamiliarity with technology). Several members urged stiffer penalties for establishments and individuals who practice while unlicensed, to reduce repeat violations. Counsel and staff explained the state’s renewal-notification process and the statutory authority for late fees and civil penalties, noting a $200 late fee paid to the state can be separate from disciplinary penalties assessed by the board when a licensee practices while expired.

Distinguishing action from discussion: the board’s motions and votes were explicit for each case; where counsel recommended closure the board accepted closure, and where counsel recommended a particular sanction the board sometimes amended the recommended penalty before voting. Several members emphasized the board’s ability to change precedent if recurring problems justify stronger sanctions.

Ending: The board concluded the legal report with the vote to refer the multiple unlicensed-activity files to district attorneys and then moved on to the executive director’s report.