NORTH CAROLINA, BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA, WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF FUNERAL SERVICE, CASE NO. C17-014 In the matter of: Cremation Services, Inc. and CONSENT ORDER Susanne Blair, Respondents. THIS CAUSE, coming before the North Carolina Board of Funeral Service (‘Board”) at its offices at 1033 Wade Avenue, Suite 108 in Raleigh, North Carolina, with a quorum present. The Board and Respondents stipulate and agree to entry of the following Consent Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent Cremation Services, Inc. (hereinafter “Respondent Crematory”) is licensed as Crematory No. 28 by the Board and, therefore, is subject to Chapter 90 of the North Carolina General Statutes; Title 21, Chapter 34 of the North Carolina Administrative Code; and the standards set forth in Funeral Industry Practices, 16 CER. § 453 (1984). 2. Susanne Blair (hereinafter “Respondent Blair”) is licensed as Funeral Service No. 2386 and is, therefore, subject to Chapter 90 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Title 21, Chapter 34 of the North Carolina Administrative Code; and the standards set forth in Funeral Industry Practices, 16 C.P.R. § 453 (1984): 3. Respondent Blair is both the manager and owner of Respondent Crematory 4, James Howard Massie, II (hereinafter “Mr. Massie”) was employed by Respondent Crematory as a Crematory Technician at all pertinent times herein. Mr. Massie does not hold a funeral directing, embalming or funeral service license issued by the Board. 3. On February 21, 2017, Board staff received a complaint (hereinafter the “Complaint”) from First Sergeant D. D. Hale (hereinafter “ Complainant”), a police ofifver with the City of King, NC Police Department. 6. In the Complaint, Complainant included an Incident/Investigation Report from a call to the residence of Mr. Massie, located at 110 Faye Court, King, North Carolina (hereinafter the “Massie Residence”), on or about February 2, 2017, to investigate aLreport of suspicious activity involving the discovery of eremated human remains.10. ML. 12. 13. Pursuant to the Complaint, the City of King Police Department were contacted by Adam David Bskridge (hereinafter “Mr. Eskridge”) and Zachary Radford (hereinafter “Mr. Radford”), who were at the Massie Residence on or about February 2, 2017 for the purpose of performing tree removal services. ‘Upon arriving at the Massie Residence, Complainant observed what appeared to be cremated human remains and identifiable bone fragments and shards in Mr. ‘Massie’s city trash can; in Mr. Massie’s driveway; and in other areas of the Massie Residence. Pursuant to the Complaint, Mr. Eskridge reported to the City of King Police ‘Department that he observed identifiable bone shards and/or a gray ash substance in numerous places at the Massie Residence, including but not limited to the following locations: On Mr. Massie’s driveway near the garage door; Ina trash can located on Mr. Massie’s property; Under the rear deck in Mr. Massie’s back yard; and In a plastic bag that had “playboy bunnies on same,” found in the front yard of the Massie Residence. Bese Sergeant K. D. Gallimore (hereinafter “Sgt. Gallimore”) and Complainant responded to the Massie Residence on or about February 2, 2017, and observed cremated remains and identifiable bone shards in a trash can and in the driveway. Sgt. Gallimore and Complainant seized the following into evidence from the Massie Residence: a, “DVD-R;” b. “Bone shards (plastic container);” ¢. *Plastic container containing human remains;” and 4. “Plastic bag containing human remains.” On or about February 3, 2017, Detective J. D. Harrison met with Mr. Massie at the King Police Department for the purpose of conducting a recorded interview (hereinafter the “Interview”). During the Interview, Mr. Massie stated in part that he is an employee of Respondent Crematory; that Mr. Massie was in possession of 93 containers of cremated human remains that he removed from Respondent Crematory and was allegedly temporarily storing at the Massie Residence; and that Respondent Crematory has insufficient storage for “unclaimed” cremated remains.14. 15. 17. 18. 19, 20. 21, 22. 23. Also during the Interview, Mr. Massie admitted to placing “a portion of the remains into [Mr. Massie’s] trash can.” On February 3, 2017, Mr. Massie confirmed to Complainant that he was in possession of 93 sets of cremated human remains at his residence for the alleged. purpose of disposal. On February 16, 2017, Board staff served Respondent Blair, as Manager of Respondent Crematory, with a copy of the Complaint by USPS Certified Mail, instructing Respondent Blair to respond to the Complaint within ten (10) days. On March 1, 2017, Board staff received Respondent Response to the Complaint (hereinafier the “Response”).. Srematory’s delinquent In the Response, Respondent Blair stated that multiple sets of unclaimed cremated remains are disposed of “folnce a year,” and that Respondent Crematory “has been doing this for many years.” ‘Also in the Response, Respondent Blait admitted that Mr. Massie “threw [some cremated remains] into the trash can” at the Massie Residence, Also in the Response, Respondent Blair stated that Respondents “have no idea what they were talking about” with regards to the “play boy bunny on the cremains.” ‘On March 30, 2017, the Board issued an Order for Summary Suspension, a copy of which is herein incorporated by reference, temporarily suspending the crematory permit of Respondent Crematory, following findings that: a. “‘Ifestablished by a preponderance of the evidence ata hearing, the Board could reasonably concluded that one or more violations of the Board’ laws and rules has been committed by employees, managers, or agents of Respondent Crematory.” b. “The actions and omissions of employees, managers, or agents of Respondent Crematory as described in Paragraphs 1-13 above warrant emergency action by the Board to protect public safety, health, and welfare.” On April 3, 2017, a copy of the Order for Summary Suspension was personally served on Respondent Blair by Board Inspector Darrell Cagle (hereinafter “Inspector Cagle”). Respondent Crematory’s ctematory establishment permit was suspended, precluding it from operating, from April 3, 2017 until the date this Consent Order was executed,24, 26. 21. 28. 29. On April 4, 2017, Inspector Cagle conducted an investigation and inspection of ‘Respondent Crematory pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-210.24(b)(1) (hereinafter the “April 2017 Investigation”) During the April 2017 Investigation, Inspector Cagle noted the following inspection violations: a. Respondent Crematory’s refrigeration equipment was not found to be “(cJapable of maintaining interior temperature of 40 degrees F while loaded with maximum number of bodies or which designed.” Respondent Crematory ‘was given a May 4,2017 comply by deadline for recalibration and/or service of refrigeration unit. Upon information and belief, Respondents provided Inspector Cagle with documentation purporting to show that this recalibration and service timely occurred. b. Respondent Crematory’s premises were not found to be “clean; equipment in good repair and sanitary.” More specifically, Inspector Cagle noted that Respondent Crematory’s “[p]rocessing unit was found to have removable amounts of processed cremated remains still present in machine,” which “could cause commingling of remains.” c. Some of Respondent Crematory’s cremation files were found to missing requisite “[w]ritten authorizations to cremate, signed by authorizing agent, containing authorization, name of person to accept cremated remains, ultimate disposition of cremated remains if known.” Mote specifically, Inspector Cagle found that “[aluthorizations executed by Forsyth Co. DSS lacked signature of Director as agent / many authorizations missing ultimate disposition of cremated remains.” During the April 2017 Investigation, Inspector Cagle noted that Mr. Massie was heard to say on the recording of the Interview that Mr. Massie was storing the cremated remains in the shed at his home with plans to dispose of a few containers at atime throughout an unspecified period of time. Also during the April 2017 Investigation, Inspector Cagle noted that Mr. Massie ‘was heard to say on the recording of the Interview that Mr. Massie described using, a leaf blower to clean spilled cremated remains from the driveway of the Massie Residence. Also during the April 2017 Investigation, Respondent Blair admitted to Inspector Cagle that Respondent Blair allowed Mr. Massie to remove the cremated remains in question the day before his trip to dispose of the remains, allowing him to store them overnight at his home. Also during the April 2017 Investigation, Respondent Blair told Inspector Cagle that all of the cremated remains removed from Respondent Crematory were to be30. 31 32. 33. 34, stored at Mr. Massic’s residence for a single night, with the intention of scattering all the remains the following day. Also during the April 2017 Investigation, Respondent Blair admitted that her decision to allow Mr. Massie to remove the cremated remains to his home instead of directly to the place of final disposition was a mistake that would not be made again, ‘Also during the April 2017 Investigation, Mr. Massie told Inspector Cagle that he had 89 sets of cremated remains, not 93 as Mr. Massie previously indicated to the police, contained in clear plastic bags in a large plastic tote bag that he removed. from Respondent Crematory to the Massie Residence. Also during the April 2017 Investigation, Mr. Massie told Inspector Cagle that some of the clear plastic bags containing cremated human remains had small holes, which resulted in some cremated remains leaking out and commingling in the bottom of the large plastic tote bag. Also during the April 2017 Investigation, Mr. Massie admitted that be threw some cremated remains into a trash can located at the Massie Residence. Also during the April 2017 Investigation, Inspector Cagle reviewed the cremation files and documents purportedly belonging to the 89 individuals whose cremated remains were removed from Respondent Crematory and taken to the Massic Residence. Inspector Cagle noted the following deficiencies therein: a. Many cremation authorization forms executed by Forsyth County Department of Social Service lacked a signature of the department director or social worker as authorizing agent for the cremation of the deceased; b. Many cremation authorization forms lacked any directive for final disposition of cremated remains; c. It was found that Respondents failed to notify any of the authorizing agents of the intent of Respondent Crematory to dispose of the cremated remains by scattering; d. The cremation file for Mr. Willis H. Blackwell did not contain an authorization for cremation; e. The cremation file for Jerry Jackson contained a cremation authorization that was not signed by 2 fimeral director, nor had signatures of witnesses to the authorizing agent's signature;£. The cremation file for Joel Gallagher contained a cremation authorization that was not signed by a funeral director, nor had signatures of witnesses to the authorizing agent's signature; The cremation file for Thomas Scott, Jr. contained a cremation authorization that was not signed by a funeral director, nor had signatures of witnesses to the authorizing agent’s signature; b, The cremation file for Jimmy Bynum contained a cremation authorization purportedly signed by.Mr. Massie in the section designated for a licensed funeral director; i The cremation file for Linda Kay Price contained a cremation authorization purportedly signed by Mr. Massie in the in the section designated for a licensed funeral director; j. The Whole Body Release Form issued for the anatomical donation of John Case by Wake Forest Baptist School of Medicine directed the licensee to return Mr. Case's cremated remains to Mr, Case’s sister, Frances Mok, at her address: 4909 Barrett Road, Kings Mountain, NC 28086. Inspector Cagle found no receipt of certified mail delivery present in the file. Further, Respondents represented to Inspector Cagle that the cremated remains of Mr. Case were one of the 89 sets of remains disposed of by Mr. Massie. Respondent Blair admitted that this was an oversight and stated that the staff of Respondent Crematory purportedly did not realize that the cremated remains of Mr. Case were to be retumed to a family member. BASED upon the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW . Respondents are subject to jurisdiction before the Board. Respondents were properly served with process. . The Board is authorized to hear this matter pursuant to Article 3A, Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes. . The acts and omissions described in Paragraphs 1-34 of employees and/or agents of Respondent Crematory constitute a failure to comply with cremation recordkeeping practices as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-210.127. . The acts and omissions described in Paragraphs 1-34 of employees and/or agents of Respondent Crematory constitute failure to maintain a refrigeration unit with a temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit, as required by 21 NCAC 34C .0202(1).6. The acts and omissions described in Paragraphs 1-34 of employees and/or agents of Respondent Crematory constitute deficient cremation authorization forms and deficient recordkeeping, generally, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat, § 90-210.125(8). 7. The acts and omissions described in Parageaphs 1-34 of employees and/or agents of Respondent Crematory constitute a failure to treat dead human bodies with respect at all times, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-210.123(g)(9). 8. The acts and omissions described in Paragraphs 1-34 of employees and/or agents of Respondent Crematory constitute aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to perform services requiring a license, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90- 210.123(g)(8). 9. The acts and omissions of employees and/or agents of Respondent Crematory described in Paragraphs 1-34 constitute violating or cooperating with others to violate any of the provisions of this Article or Articles 13D, 13E, or 13F of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes, any rules and regulations of the Board, or the standards set forth in Funeral Industry Practices, 16 C.F.R. 453 (1984), as amended from time to time, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-210.123(g)(10). 10. The acts and omissions described in Paragraphs 1-34 of employees and/or agents of Respondent Crematory constitute violation of State laws or municipal or county ordinances or regulations affecting the handling, custody, care, or transportation of dead human bodies, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-210.123(g)(11). LL. The the acts and omissions of Respondent Crematory described in Paragraphs 1-34 constitute indecent exposure of dead human bodies, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat, § 90-210.123(g)(13). 12. The acts and omissions of Mr. Massie described in Paragraphs 1-34 constitute practicing fimeral directing, embalming or funeral service without a license in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-210.123(«)(14). 13. The acts and omissions of Respondent Blair described in Paragraphs 1-34 constitute a failure to treat dead human bodies with respect at all times, in violation of N.C. Gen, Stat, § 90-210.25(e)()i. 14, The acts and omissions of Respondent Blair described in Paragraphs 1-34 constitute a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-210.25(e)(1)k., which prohibits violating any State Iaw or municipal or county ordinance or regulation affecting the handling, custody, care or transportation of dead human bodies. 15. Theacts and omissions of Respondent Blair described in Paragraphs 1-34 constitute aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to perform services under this Article, in violation of N.C. Gen, Stat. § 90-210.25(e)(1)h.16. The acts and omissions of Respondent Blair described in Paragraphs 1-34 constitute indecent exposure of dead human bodies, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat, § 90- 210.25(e\(1)n. 17. The acts and omissions of Respondent Blair described in Paragraphs 1-34 constitute ‘violating or cooperating with others to violate any of the provisions of this Article or Articles 13D, 13E, or 13F of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes, any rules and regulations of the Board, or the standards set forth in Funeral Industry Practices, 16 CER. 453 (1984), as amended from time to time, which is prohibited by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-210.25(¢)(1)i. 18, Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Section 90-210.123(h) to place Respondent Crematory on probation, to assess a civil penalty not to exceed ‘$5,000.00, and to impose other such discipline as may be appropriate. 19, Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Section 90-210.25(e)(2), the Board has. the authority to place Respondent Blair on probation, to assess a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000.00, and to impose other such discipline as may be appropriate. BASED upon the foregoing and in lieu of further proceedings under 21 N.C. Admin. Code 344 .0100, Respondents wish to resolve this matter by consent and agree that the Board staff and counsel may discuss this Order with the Board ex parte whether or not the Board accepts this Order as written. Whereas Respondents acknowledge that they have read this entire document and understand it; Whereas Respondents acknowledge that they enter into this Consent Order freely and voluntarily; Whereas Respondents acknowledge that they have had full and adequate opportunity to confer with legal counsel in connection with this matter; Whereas Respondents understand that this Consent Order must be presented to the Board for approval and that Respondents hereby waive any argument that any Board members considering this Consent Order are disqualified from participating in a hearing of this matter; and ‘Whereas the Board has determined that the public interest is served by resolving this matter as set forth below. ‘Therefore, with the consent of Respondents, it is ORDERED that: 1. Respondents hereby admit to the violations contained herein,‘The crematory permit of Respondent Crematory is hereby actively suspended for a period beginning on April 3, 2017, and ending on the date this Consent Order becomes fully executed. ‘The funeral service license of Respondent Blair is hereby placed on a period of probation for three (3) years, beginning from the date this Consent Order takes effect. ‘The crematory permit of Respondent Crematory is hereby placed on a period of probation for three (3) years, beginning from the date this Consent Order takes effect, Within thirty (30) days from the date this Consent Order takes effect, Respondent must remit payment to the Board of a penalty in the amount of THREE THOUSAND. Five HUNDRED AND No/100 DoLLars ($3,500.00) to the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund in accordance with Article 31A of Chapter 115C of the North Carolina General Statutes, Within thirty (30) days from the date this Consent Order takes effect, Respondents must provide proof to Board staff that they have issued a written letter of apology, sent both via USPS First Class and USPS Certified Mail — Retum Receipt Reqiiested, to the family of John Case for disposing of Mr. Case’s cremated remains in a manner contrary to the cremation documentation for Mr. Case and contrary to the wishes of Mr. Case’s family; more specifically, that Mr. Case’s cremated remains should have been returned to Mr. Case’s sister, Frances Mok, who resides at 4909 Barrett Road, Kings Mountain, NC 28086. Respondents agree to terminate all financial, management, ownership, and/or paid or unpaid employment interests with Mr. Massie before the Board adopts this Consent Order. Respondents further agree not to accept any future financial, management, ownership, and/or paid or unpaid employment interests with Mr. Massie without the prior approval of the Board. On or before December 31, 2017, Respondent Blair and each and every employce, whether licensed by the Board or not, of Respondent Crematory shall successfully complete a continuing education course taught by Board staff concerning cremation rules and regulations; the time, length, and content of which sball be directed by Board staff. The Board shail retain jurisdiction under Article 3A, Chapter 150B for all administrative hearings held in connection with or pursuant to this Consent Order. If the Board receives evidence that Respondents, collectively or individually, have violated any term of this Consent Order and/or any other rale or law enforced by the Board during the probationary period, the Board shall schedule a show cause hearing for a determination of the violations. If the Board determines that a violation has occurred, the Board may impose such disciplinary action that isauthorized by Chapter 90 of the North Carolina General Statutes and any action in the General Court of Justice to enforce this order that it deems appropriate and is, authorized by law. 10. This Consent Order shall take efifect immediately upon its execution by all parties and reflects the entire agreement between Respondents and the Board, there being no agreement of any kind, verbal or otherwise, which varies, alters, or adds to this Consent Order. 11. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Consent Order shall be effective unless itis in writing, adopted and approved by the Board, and signed by the parties affected. 12. Both the Board and counsel for Respondents participated in the drafting of this Consent Order. Any ambiguities herein shall not be construed against either party in any future civil or administrative proceeding. 13. Respondents hereby waive any requirement under any law or rule that this Consent Order be served upon them. 14, Upon its execution by both the Board and Respondents, this Consent Order shall become a public record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes and shall become subject to public inspection and dissemination pursuant to the provisions thereof. CONSENTED TO: wa Dae: Apad 2%, Co}. Susanne Blair Que Vo Date: Ages UC, 201¥ Susanne Blair, Manager/Owner Cremation Services, Inc. eh By order of the North Carolina Board of Funeral Service, this, the 1O7—day of May. 2017. [This line for Board use only} Charles J- Graves: President 10