Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board orders $1,000 fine, surprise inspections for establishment with long history of complaints
Summary
After discussion about repeated violations, the Tennessee Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers authorized a $1,000 civil penalty, one‑third of investigation costs, and 12 months of unannounced inspections for an establishment tied to a string of complaints, aiming to add enforcement "teeth."
The Tennessee Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers voted July 14 to assess a $1,000 civil penalty and require unannounced inspections for 12 months at the expense of an establishment that has accumulated multiple complaints over several years.
Legal counsel summarized an inspector's report that on March 3 an expired apprentice and a suspended director were present at the establishment and appeared to be involved in making funeral arrangements. Counsel recommended the maximum civil penalty applicable per day, plus apportioning investigative costs. Board members described a lengthy disciplinary history — more than a dozen complaints over the past 12 years and thousands of dollars in prior penalties — and questioned whether repeated fines had produced compliance.
"At what point do we say enough is enough?" one member asked, noting repeated violations and the apparent ineffectiveness of fines alone. Another member proposed a package that would include surprise inspections and possible escalation to suspension or revocation if further violations are found.
The board adopted a motion (moved by Randy Nash, seconded by Tim Wheeler) to impose a $1,000 civil penalty plus one‑third of the investigative costs, and to require unannounced inspections for 12 months, with inspection costs charged to the establishment. Counsel said the board may seek formal hearings or other remedies if orders are not complied with.
Board members said surprise inspections, and attaching the cost of those inspections to the establishment, were intended to deter recurring noncompliance that had continued despite prior penalties. Counsel clarified the board's ability to refer unresolved nonpayment for judgment or even criminal prosecution where statutes support it.
