58 F.3d 1111 (6th Cir. 1995)
The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are the next of kin of deceased individuals whose bodies were subjected to autopsies conducted by Dr. Ronald Hines.1
Dr. Hines performed these autopsies at Saginaw Community Hospital under contract with the Saginaw and Tuscola County Medical Examiners, and in one instance at Trenerry’s Funeral Home.2 His assistant, Armando Herrera, who owned and operated the Central Michigan Eye Bank and Tissue Center and held certification as an enucleator, assisted Dr. Hines and had a business agreement with the counties to cover autopsy costs in exchange for opportunities involving corneal removals.
Following the completion of each autopsy, Herrera allegedly removed the corneas or entire eyeballs from the bodies without obtaining permission from the next of kin.3 In some instances the next of kin were never asked for consent, while in others they specifically refused.4 The plaintiffs claim that Tuscola and Saginaw Counties authorized these actions, after which Herrera sold the removed tissues through his eye bank.5
After discovering the removals, the plaintiffs initiated lawsuits in both state and federal courts alleging violations of state and federal law.6 The federal cases were consolidated, and all claims were dismissed except the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.7 The district court dismissed this remaining claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that Michigan law did not establish a sufficient property interest in the decedents’ bodies.8 The plaintiffs then appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.9
Whether Michigan law provides the next of kin with a constitutionally protected property interest in a deceased relative’s body, including the eyes?10
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving persons of property without due process of law.11 Property interests protected by the Due Process Clause are not created by the Constitution but by independent sources such as state law that secure benefits and support claims of entitlement.12 Courts examine the substance of rights granted by the state, including the traditional bundle of rights to possess, use, exclude, profit from, and dispose of an object, rather than the particular label the state attaches to those rights.13
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that the plaintiffs are the next of kin of deceased individuals whose bodies underwent autopsies performed by Dr. Ronald Hines at Saginaw Community Hospital under contracts with the Saginaw and Tuscola County Medical Examiners, and in one instance at Trenerry’s Funeral Home.14
Dr. Hines’s assistant Armando Herrera operated the Central Michigan Eye Bank and Tissue Center. Herrera removed corneas or entire eyeballs after each autopsy without obtaining consent from the next of kin, sometimes after explicit refusals. Herrera sold the tissues through his eye bank pursuant to an arrangement with the counties that offset autopsy costs.15
Michigan law grants the next of kin the right to possess the body for burial and to prevent its mutilation, as repeatedly recognized by the Michigan Supreme Court in decisions such as Doxtator v. Chicago & W. Mich. R.R. and Deeg v. City of Detroit.16 Michigan’s Anatomical Gift Act further authorizes the next of kin to make gifts of all or part of the decedent’s body when the decedent has not expressed a contrary intent.17 These rights parallel those found sufficient in Ohio law under Brotherton v. Cleveland, where the court held that the aggregate of rights to control disposal, possess for burial, and prevent interference rises to a legitimate claim of entitlement.18
The district court’s distinction that Michigan measures recovery in tort rather than property law does not alter the constitutional analysis. The substance of the rights to possession and non-mutilation remains identical to the rights protected in Brotherton. The county medical examiner statutes requiring prompt return of the body to relatives or the person entitled to custody further confirm the existence of these entitlements.19 Application of the rule to these facts therefore establishes that Michigan law creates a constitutionally protected property interest in the deceased relative’s body, including the eyes.20
Michigan law provides the next of kin with a constitutionally protected property interest in a deceased relative’s body, including the eyes, and the district court therefore erred in dismissing the procedural due process claims under Rule 12(b)(6).21