IN THE STATE COURT OF CHATHAM COUNTY, STATE OF GEORGIA TEVIN ALEXANDER DRYSDALE And KEARA DRYSDALE, Plaintiff, v CIVIL ACTION NO. MEMORIAL HEALTH UNIVERSITY, ) ) ) ) ) ) } MEDICAL CENTER , INC. ) ) ) ) Defendants. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - DESECRATION OF HUMAN REMAINS COMES NOW Tevin Alexander Drysdale and Keara Drysdale, parents and Plaintiffs herein, and for their complaint show as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE L Plaintiffs Tevin Alexander Drysdale and Keara Drysdale are residents of Chatham County, Georgia. a Defendant Memorial Health University Medical Center, Inc. is a business who can be served with process through its registered agent Rebecca O'Neill, L. at 4700 Waters Avenue, Chatham, Savannah, GA, 31404. 3 Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this court,FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4. Plaintiff renews and reaffirms herein each and every allegation of all preceding paragraphs. 3 On and before March 11, 2017 Mrs. Drysdale was under the care and treatment of Dr. Mark Bluhm, a fertility specialist. 6. On March 11, 2017, while pregnant with twins at an approximate gestation age of 16 weeks, Mrs. Drysdale spontaneously delivered one twin. 7. After delivering that twin, she began to experience symptoms and was in need of 8. After delivering one child and suffering symptoms, needing medical treatment on an urgent basis, Mrs. Drysdale contacted Emergency Medical Services through 911 and was subsequently transported to Memorial Health University Medical Center. 9. Her delivered twin was likewise transported with her to Memorial Health University Medical Center and was delivered to an appropriate treatment room for examination and treatment by staff at Memorial Health University Medical Center.10. After Mrs. Drysdale was fully stabilized, staff at Memorial Health University Medical Center inquired of her whether she would like to have footprints and handprints of her child so that she could name the child and have an appropriate memorial service for her offspring. i. Mr. and Mrs. Drysdale agreed that they would very much like to know the sex of their demised baby as well as have its remains and handprints and footprints so that they could conduct an appropriate memorial service. 12, Memorial Health University Medical Center staff advised Mrs. Drysdale that they would indeed provide the Plaintiffs with prints of their daughter, deliver the daughter to pathology for a review, and make arrangements for the remains to be delivered to the Drysdales. 13, After a lengthy period of time, staff at Memorial Health University Medical Center advised the Drysdales that they would not have the opportunity to have the handprints or footprints of their child. 14. Defendant likewise advised the Drysdales that they would not be provided with the remains of their child. 15. Memorial Health University Medical Center staff likewise advised the Drysdales that they would not be able to conduct a memorial ceremony for their child.16. All of the above was denied to the Drysdales by the Memorial Health University Medical staff because the staff simply lost, destroyed, threw away, disposed or otherwise secreted the remains of the Drysdales’ child, depriving them of the opportunity to properly honor and remember their child 17. Mrs. Drysdale, as a soldier in the United States Army, has suffered grievous physical and emotional harm because of the loss and destruction of her child. COUNT ONE Negligence Per Se 18. Plaintiff renews and reaffirms herein each and every allegation of all preceding paragraphs. 1. Defendant, Memorial Health University Medical Center was negligent per se when it failed to execute its duty to return the Drysdales’ child’s remains to them as promised and instead disposed of the Drysdales’ child’s remains in a manner not authorized by law. 20. Defendant was negligent per se by violating O.C.G.A. § 31-21-44.2 which makes it a felony to throw away or abandon any dead human body or portion of such a dead body not under a death certificate or other method authorized by law. See “Memorial Health University Medical Center Records” at 14 and 18 attached hereto as “ExhilPa Mr. and Mrs, Drysdale have filed a report with the Savannah Chatham County Police Department in regards to Memorial Health University Medical Center's violation of 0.C.G.A. § 31-21-44.2. 2. Defendant was negligent per se by violating O.C.G.A. § 31-21-5 by not eremating the Drysdales” child in a manner approved by Department of Community Health. 23. Defendant was negligent per se by failing to follow O.C.G.A. § 31-10-18 which required the Defendant to file a report regarding the spontaneous fetal death within 48 hours after delivery, 24, By failing to comply with these acts, Defendant negligently lost or disposed of the Drysdales’ child’s remains in a sequence of careless acts and omissions that demonstrated a reckless disregard for the Drydales’ child’s remains. Each of these statutes was violated, the Drysdales were persons that clearly fall within the class of persons the acts intended to protect, and the type of harm that occurred ~ the loss or improper disposition of a child’s remains and subsequent pain and suffering — is exactly the type of harm the statute was intended to guard against 25. Asa result of these negligent acts and omissions, Mrs. Drysdale has been denied an opportunity crucial to a parent when they lose a child. Mrs. Drysdale’s suffering is exacerbatedby the fact that she and her husband struggled to conceive and in fact, enlisted the assistance of Dr. Bluhm in order to conceive with special fertility treatments. 26. ‘The loss of this pregnancy and the deprivation of the opportunity to appropriately mourn and grieve the loss caused Mrs. Drysdale to continuously remain in an extreme state of agitation and unrest, Because of the grievous emotional suffering visited upon Mrs. Drysdale, she has been unable to appropriately conduct her duties as a soldier in the United States Army. Further, due to the negligent handling of her child, Mrs. Drysdale was in such an emotional state that some months after she lost her daughter, she spontaneously delivered the child’s twin who also failed to survive. 27. Memorial Health University Medical Center had a duty imposed by statute to exercise ordinary care not to lose or improperly dispose of the Drysdale’s child’s remains. Not only do the Drysdales fall within the class of people the statute is meant to protect, but O.C.G.A. § 5I-1- 8 gives a right of action arising from a private duty either imposed by statute or express or implied contract. Here, Memorial Health University Medical Center had a duty imposed by statute to properly handle the Drysdales child’s remains. Defendant breached its duty by losing or improperly disposing of the remains, and that breach caused Mr. and Mrs. Drysdale’s great ‘emotional pain and suffering for which they should recover: COUNT TWO Negligent Mishandling of Human Remains 28. Plaintiff renews and reaffirms each and every allegation of all preceding paragraphs.29. Defendant Memorial Health University Medical Center had a duty of ordinary care not to lose the remains of loved ones and in losing Mrs. Drysdales’ child’s remains, breached that duty and caused her and her husband great emotional pain and suffering. 30. Not only do the Drysdales’ have a guasi-property right in the remains of their child, but there is also a legal duty, enforceable by the next of kin, which requires that a party contractually obligated to handle a corpse do so nonnegligently and with the utmost dignity. 31. The hospital had both an express and implied contract with the Drysdales regarding the disposition of their child's remains. It was expressly and orally agreed that Defendant would give the Drysdales footprints and handprints of their child as well as their child’s remains to censure they had the opportunity to properly honor her and bury her. The Drysdales at no point relieved Defendant of its obligation to execute the agreement. 32, Defendants lost or inappropriately disposed of the Drysdales” child’s remains despite the agreement or the Drysdales’ property interest in the remains. 33, In failing to deliver the handprints, footprints, and remains, Defendant's interfered with the Drysdales quasi-property right and negligently breached their contract to carry out the express wishes of the next of kin regarding the disposition of the child’s remains34. ‘Asa result of Defendant's negligence, the Drysdale’s have lost the opportunity to bury their loved one and have suffered great emotional distress as a result. COUNT THREE Tortious Interference with Burial Rights 38, Plaintiff renews and reaffirms herein each and every allegation of all preceding paragraphs. 36. The Drysdales had a guasi-property right in the remains of their child. 37. Defendants had a contractual duty express and implied to carry out the express wishes of the Drysdales regarding the disposition of their child’s remains. 38. The Drysdales expressed the desire to retrieve their daughter's footprints, handprints, and remains in order for them to hold an appropriate memorial service. 39. Defendants acts were such as to evidence a willful intention to inflict injury, or else were so reckless or so charged with indifference to the consequences as to justify finding a { to actual intent. ‘wantonness equivalent in spi 40. The Drysdales were unable to bury their daughter as to their wishes and suffered great emotional distress as a result.COUNT FOUR Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 41. Plaintiff renews and reaffirms herein each and every allegation of all preceding paragraphs, 42. By agreeing to give the Drysdales their baby’s footprints, handprints, and remains and then negligently losing or improperly disposing of the remains, Defendant intentionally or recklessly acted to inflict emotional distress upon the couple. 43. Given the vulnerable position of the Drysdales, both because pregnaney was difficult for them and the subsequent loss of their child, Defendant's negligent loss or disposal of the child's remains was extreme and outrageous ~ especially given the conversations and agreements with the Drysdales prior to the disposal or loss. 44. Asa result of Defendant's actions, the Drysdales suffered severe emotional distress, leading to both the spontaneous delivery of the child’s twin a few months later and Mrs. Drysdale’s inability to conduct her duties as a soldier in the United States Army. 45, ide the Drysdales with their child’s remains and then recklessly By agreeing to pro losing the remains, Defendant's actions were directed at the Drysdales and caused their injury.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays: (A) That Summons and Process be issued and served upon Defendant; (B) Fora trial by a jury comprised of twelve persons; (C) That Plaintiffs be awarded all general, special, compensatory, economic, and other allowable damages in accordance with the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury and as permitted under Georgia law; (D) For recovery of attomey’s fees and all costs of litigation against Defendant; and (E) That Plaintiffs recover such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 8" day of June, 2017. TATE LAW@ROUP, Mak A.Tate Georgia Bar No. 698820 2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 9060 Savannah, Georgia 31401 (912) 234-3030/(912) 234-9700 FaxMemorial Health University Medical Center Revenue Location . Memorial He att # University Medical Center Procedure Notes (continued) " rocedures ole, MD at 34112017 3: ‘ite. Spaia Neal VO Sonia Oba. So 3 7047 640 PM fe Tone S017 908 ae Soa, Nol MD Rein) ‘repocetue Dagnosee ‘TPlogarey. tinh ss fon us, second Vesa [090.00, 031.120, Post proce Olagnoses ‘Prorary twin ee foe ft, coco imal 30.002, 0.120] Procure {AiNOCENTESIS[PRO2000) Patient was counseled and consented to the procedure. DRYSDALE,KEARA LAKEA MRN: 30298975 DOB: 7/4/1991, Sex: F ‘Acct #: 20522614 ‘Adm: 3/11/2017, DIC: 3114/2017 Sar Soe cecrer Roe Antony 8, MO a srigz01T 602 PM Obstetrical ultrasound was performed to determine fetal position and location of the placenta. ‘Abdomen was cleaned with betadine solution and a drape was placed over the abdomen. Optimal needle insertion site was selected via ultrasound. 20 gauge needle was then inserted under direct ultrasound guidance. Ultrasound probe was held in place while needle was advanced under continuous visualization from Ultrasound. Needle tip was identified on the screen and 15 mL of amniotic fluid was aspirated in a sterile syringe by gentle traction. Fetal heart rate was assessed sonographically after the procedure. Nicole Sparks, MD poral pasty Rape, ANON, Me on ‘Ni ae at Bis ener. CliniealProgress Notes tiniest via Sela, RN ‘2 Fach, Ot Sve, ‘ysunos7 aap Esioe Ft, Civ Saca,RN (Raptr Nurse) Cents Oboe Nets Towe M4207 601 PUL Tata pe Raped ioe Siauw Shee Pt has no complaints at this time. Pt states she has no vaginal bleeding or pain at this time. Pt states she is. prepared to be discharged and he husband is on the way. Pt has no questions or concems at this time Era sa Sein ON on 84017 Ba Pe ty re by Pe 31442017 2: Note by Futch, ol 7th Fah, Oli See, FN ‘lee ananoW :04 Pat ES ton, lv See, RN (Ropetored Nurse) ‘A member from risk management and Carla Edwards came to p's bedside to speak with her in regards to her ‘demised infant possibly being disposed of in the emergency department. acrobat, On Si, Rn ‘Generated by LAMBERT, SARAH at 5/25/17 3:21 PM‘Memorial Health University Medical DRYSDALE,KEARA LAKEA Memorial =" Ser HeaLTHuH ‘Acct #: 20522614 ‘Adm: 3/41/2017, D/C: 3/14/2017 University Medical Center CCinicalProgress Notes (continued) Progress Notes by Redick, Keisha L,MD ot 3/19/2017 4:30 PM (continued) I returned to the patient's room to review plan of care. Her hospital admission has been complicated with misplacement of Twin A's remains. The patient was notified earlier and was upset and wanted to speak about about her labs. | personally called the lab (micro and heme). At this time there is no growth however the final culture result may not be back until tomorrow or later. | explained to her that itis not uncommon to have a few days to grow bacteria however there is a somewhat unclear picture as she had a positive gram stain for gram negative bacteria, That said, the culture results will primarily aid us in the decision of either continuing expectant management or if she needs an induction of labor (which would be recommended if she has a positive culture). | am not certain that cerclage placement is in her best interest based on the positive gram stain. We reviewed that she may simply need to continue expectant management which if she remains stable then we can discontinue her antibiotics later this week and discuss outpatient management. Vestn 1a | also discussed with her option for obtaining genetic testing on the remaining amniotic fluid in the lab (per Heme, there is approximately 6 mL remaining). The patient desires cytogenetic testing therefore the sample will be sent for culture micro-array. Ihave seen and examined the palient with the resident team. I have reviewed the history and agree with plan of care as outlined. | reviewed plan of care/management with the patient and answered all questions. Keisha L. B. Reddick, MD 7:20 PM 3/13/2017 sity Sie by nck Ke MD a 9S Nicole, MO sot See id tt wo man ene Di/di twin gestation at 15 weeks with delivery of the first twin on Saturday. Since then she has had an ‘amniocentesis to evaluate for intrauterine infection. She has no complaints, denies any cramping, contractions or bleeding. iesoa ong: Redlek Kesha, MO ot 3132017 1088 ANA ary Sav 729.00 Her history is signficnat for recurrent pregnancy loss and she reports a history of PCOs. She conceived this pregnancy with fertility medications. She reports having a recurrent pregnancy loss evaluation with Dr Blom. BP 119/68 mmHg | Pulse 81 | Temp(Sre) 36.7 °C (98.1 “F) (Oral) | Resp 20 | Ht 1.702 m (6' 7") | Wt 76.204 kg (168 Ib) | BMI 26.31 kgim2 | SpO2 98% | Breastfeeding? Yes WBC 9.2 Glucose normal; Protein low Gram stain showed no WBCs but had many gram negative coccobacil I reviewed with her the possibility of an intrauterine infection and how that will impact this pregnancy ‘and outcome. If the final result shows bacteria then recommend induction of labor. Will continue, ‘Generated by LAMBERT, SARAH at 5/25/17 3:21 PM Page 16