## Facts

- Steven Brotherton was taken to a hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio, and pronounced dead on arrival.
- Hospital staff asked his wife, Deborah Brotherton, to authorize an anatomical gift; she refused, and the refusal was recorded in the hospital’s death documentation.
- Because the death was treated as possibly self-inflicted, the body was sent to the Hamilton County coroner for autopsy.
- After the autopsy, the coroner’s office authorized removal of Steven’s corneas and arranged for an eye bank technician to remove them.
- The coroner’s office did not consult hospital records or ask whether the decedent or next of kin had objected; the hospital and coroner did not communicate Deborah’s objection.
- Ohio law permitted corneal removal from autopsy subjects without consent if the coroner had no knowledge of an objection by the decedent or specified relatives, and the coroner’s office followed a practice of not seeking consent and not checking records.
- Deborah learned of the corneal removal from the autopsy report and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of property without due process and an equal protection violation, plus state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio law gives a surviving spouse a constitutionally protected property interest in a decedent’s body (including corneas) sufficient to trigger Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process protections.
2. Whether the corneal removal resulted from established state procedures or policy, such that predeprivation process was required rather than only post-deprivation remedies.
3. Whether the complaint stated a viable § 1983 procedural due process claim based on corneal removal without notice or an opportunity to assert an objection.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that Ohio law grants surviving spouses and next of kin enforceable rights in a dead body that constitute a protected property interest for due process purposes.
- The court held that the corneas were within the scope of that protected interest.
- The court concluded that the alleged deprivation was caused by established procedures and customs of the coroner’s office, not a random and unauthorized act.
- Because the alleged practice predictably prevented discovery and honoring of objections, the complaint plausibly alleged a deprivation of property without constitutionally adequate process.

## Legal Principles

- Property interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are defined by state law and may arise from statutory and common-law rights even if not labeled “property” in traditional terms.
- A surviving spouse’s state-law rights to possess and control a decedent’s body for burial and lawful disposition can amount to a constitutionally protected property interest.
- When a deprivation is carried out pursuant to established governmental procedures or customs, procedural due process generally requires meaningful predeprivation safeguards; post-deprivation remedies are not enough where the deprivation is foreseeable and structured by policy.
- At the pleading stage, a plaintiff states a § 1983 procedural due process claim by alleging (1) a protected property interest and (2) deprivation under state action without constitutionally sufficient procedures.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Ohio’s recognition of a spouse’s enforceable rights in a decedent’s body created a protected property interest that could not be overridden by a coroner’s corneal-removal policy that failed to identify and respect objections; the dismissal of the § 1983 procedural due process claim was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.


Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir. 1991)