## Facts

- Kenneth Perry died shortly after being transported to Saint Francis Hospital in Topeka, Kansas.
- Soon after his death, a hospital nurse approached the family about tissue donation.
- The family initially declined donation but later agreed after alleged assurances that the procedures would not disfigure the body.
- Plaintiffs asserted they consented only to donation of corneas (not whole eyes) and bone marrow (not removal of major bones).
- A written consent form was signed by Mary Ann Perry as next of kin; plaintiffs contended it was modified to reflect limited permission rather than “all organs.”
- Tissue was later recovered by a retrieval team associated with the hospital and a third-party organization.
- Plaintiffs alleged that, contrary to what they agreed to, the retrieval involved removal of entire eyes and large long bones.
- The family claimed they learned the scope of removal from the funeral home, which advised that heavy clothing would be needed to cover disfigurement.

## Issues

1. Whether the hospital was entitled to “good faith” immunity under Kansas’s Uniform Anatomical Gift Act based on reliance on a signed consent form.
2. Whether alleged misrepresentations to obtain consent and subsequent removal beyond consent could constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage) under Kansas law.
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on negligence and breach of contract claims concerning the scope and obtaining of consent.

## Decision

- The court denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment in substantial part.
- The court held that disputed facts about what the nurse represented, what the family understood, and what was authorized prevented judgment as a matter of law on UAGA good-faith immunity.
- The court held that a jury could find the alleged conduct sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support an outrage claim.
- The court held that negligence and breach of contract claims could not be resolved on summary judgment because the scope and validity of consent, and whether retrieval matched that consent, were materially disputed.

## Legal Principles

- UAGA “good faith” immunity is not established solely by the existence of a signed consent form; alleged knowing or reckless misrepresentations used to obtain consent can defeat immunity at the summary-judgment stage.
- Under Kansas law, outrage requires conduct that a jury could find extreme and outrageous and emotional distress so severe that a reasonable person could not be expected to endure it; alleged mistreatment of a शव and deception of grieving family members can satisfy the threshold if proved.
- Negligence claims may proceed where evidence permits findings that the hospital failed to use reasonable care in explaining donation procedures and in ensuring procurement stayed within the consent actually given.
- A donation consent form and related representations may support a breach of contract theory when the parties’ agreement is alleged to limit what may be removed and how, and the procurement allegedly exceeds those terms.

## Conclusion

The court allowed claims for outrage, negligence, and breach of contract to proceed because a reasonable jury could find that consent was obtained through misleading statements and that tissue was removed beyond what the family authorized, defeating summary judgment and precluding automatic UAGA good-faith immunity.


Perry v. Saint Francis Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1551 (D. Kan. 1995)