Calculating UCI’s Odds in Court

Experts disagree over how much UC Irvine’s Willed Body Program scandal could cost taxpayers in court, with some saying that the alleged misuse of cadavers and loss of cremated remains would prove a compelling issue for jurors if cases reach trial.

Others, however, note that suits filed several years ago against UCLA involving mishandling of ashes from its cadaver program were dismissed. And one plaintiff’s attorney with a successful record in wringing money out of university lawyers says the contracts typically signed by donors insulate the university.

“Once a person wills a body to science, the heirs have no standing,” regardless of what happened to the bodies, said Melanie Blum, a lawyer who represented many families suing UCI over a previous scandal at its fertility clinic.

What is clear is that the cases--two have been filed so far, and more may be coming--will present a new legal twist on an old issue. Generally, lawsuits over disposal of bodies have accused mortuaries of mishandling remains that are to be cremated or buried, not medical schools that promise donors to use their bodies for research and teaching.

Even before investigators from the district attorney’s office and the university have concluded exactly what happened at the Willed Body Program, a North Tustin man has filed a lawsuit against the university alleging that his mother’s remains may have been sold for personal profit or otherwise mishandled. Robert Simpson has hired Newport Beach lawyer Federico Castelan Sayre, who has successfully pursued mortuaries for mishandling of human remains.

Allegations of possible wrongdoing at the Willed Body Program broke last month when the university announced the dismissal of program director Christopher S. Brown, who is suspected of selling cadaver parts for personal gain and having business ties to companies that profited from his program.

Since then, additional reports have surfaced that cadavers were used without university permission in an unauthorized private anatomy class on UCI grounds and that families may have received the wrong remains and have been improperly billed by an outside company for the return of ashes.

Brown has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and says he kept his supervisors informed of his activities.

Despite the swirl of allegations, members of the University of California’s Board of Regents, who were informed of the problems at UCI in a private briefing last month, have expressed overwhelming support for medical school Dean Thomas C. Cesario and Chancellor Ralph J. Cicerone and their plans to improve oversight.

“We recognize them as excellent managers and leaders and we support them,” said Meredith Khachigian of Orange County, who chairs the regents’ health services committee. “Nobody is threatening their jobs. Nobody is suggesting that someone else could do a better job. They are highly qualified, distinguished people.”

Neither regents nor UC attorneys would discuss UCI’s potential liability.

Other legal experts, however, noted that the state law authorizing anatomical gifts exempts the recipient institution from civil or criminal liability if the recipient makes an attempt at good-faith compliance with the law.

The standard is very loose, said several lawyers, because it encompasses not just a good-faith effort but even an attempt to do so.

So far, one other family has joined the Simpson suit, and lawyer Sayre plans to seek permission from a judge to grant the case class-action status that would allow the plaintiffs to pursue their claims as a group. Sayre said he has spoken with 10 other families whose relatives donated bodies to the Willed Body Program.

The potential group of plaintiffs could reach into the hundreds, said Sayre. The university estimates that it has collected 75 bodies a year in the past three years that Brown has headed the program.

The suit argues that the possible or perceived mishandling of loved one’s remains caused the survivors emotional distress.

A key point will likely be the waivers signed by the people who donated their bodies. That standard UCI contract allowed the use of cadavers for teaching, scientific research “or any other purposes deemed advisable by the university of its authorized representatives.”

Sayre believes he can persuade a jury that what happened to these cadavers went beyond what is allowed by that waiver.

University officials and the district attorney’s office have said they are investigating whether Brown profited from the sale of body parts, mixed up cremated remains or allowed donated cadavers to be used in a private anatomy session.

To recover damages from the university, however, the plaintiffs must show that Brown was acting within the scope of his employment or that the university failed to properly supervise him.

Byron Beam, who has represented the university in other suits, including the fertility clinic cases that drew international attention, said the plaintiffs would “have to show wrongdoing on the part of the university such as negligent oversight or negligent failure to discover wrongdoing when there was a sufficient time to discover it and prevent it.”

University officials have acknowledged that oversight of Brown was loose and have announced administrative reforms.

Some said the apparently swift reaction at UCI to pursue a detailed audit after early indications of problems in June could help the school fend off any lawsuit. The university’s response--especially the prompt firing of the person they suspected of wrongdoing and notifying affected families--may help in the long run, said George Annas, a professor of health law at Boston University.

Annas said he doesn’t agree with anyone predicting a large award because of the limited nature of the damages to relatives.

“You can probably show negligence” on the university’s behalf, said Annas. “You still have to prove damages--not damages to the body, but to relatives or next-of-kin.

*

Times staff writer Jeff Gottlieb contributed to this story.