May 28, 2014 at 5:17 p.m.
County, former medical examiner spar in lawsuit
County, former medical examiner spar in lawsuit
The parents and siblings of that deceased person filed the lawsuit seeking unspecified damages.
The suit alleges, among other things, that England and the county deprived the family of their property interest in the deceased person's body, destroyed or abused the body, caused negligent infliction of severe emotional distress and acted negligently.
While the thrust of the conduct at issue is not in contention - England was sentenced to one year in jail for misconduct in public office as part of a plea deal to resolve criminal charges stemming from the allegations - just who is liable for England's conduct is a question not yet settled.
More precisely: Does the county share in blame for England's actions?
That question has been a major focus in recently filed court documents in the case, and could be important as to whether Oneida County's liability insurer, Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corporation, will continue to pay England's legal fees.
County Mutual initially determined that it had a duty to defend England under the county's liability policy, and the company hired a lawyer to represent her. But in March, County Mutual sought to intervene in the suit and argued that the alleged actions England is being sued for were not committed within the scope of her employment with the county, and that therefore it does not have to pay her defense costs.
Whether or not England is covered under the insurance policy is important because County Mutual is effectively publicly funded.
Records show Oneida County has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in premiums to County Mutual in at least the past few years for the liability policy; the county must also pay a $10,000 deductible because of the lawsuit. All of that money comes from the county's property tax levy.
In an amended complaint filed earlier this month, the plaintiffs have bolstered their claim that England was working in her official capacity as medical examiner and in the course of her employment with the county when she took and used the human remains.
But England and the county have issued mostly opposing answers to that claim - and, in fact, not just about the unlawful conduct at issue.
The county has even denied that England was working in her official capacity when she met the decedent's family at a hospital, told them she would need to conduct an autopsy on the decedent's body, transported the body to the facility where the autopsy occurred and observed the autopsy.
England has also denied that she had final authority to make and enact policy for the medical examiner's office. She said she was constrained by a county committee, the corporation counsel's office and state law and rules.
Indeed, while the plaintiffs expressly claim that Oneida County has a duty to indemnify England, and England agrees, the county does not.
Despite the wrangling over whether England was working in her official capacity, both she and the county have denied all of the family's principal legal claims and have asserted defenses.
The recent court filings have also shed light on new details in the case, including:
• England claims she cannot recall whether she told an Oneida County sheriff's office detective that she kept human issue in a biohazard section of her home freezer. England further claims she cannot recall whether she said she was "lucky" to have obtained a section of human spine because "bone was hard to come by for training" her dog.
• England has denied telling a detective that a funeral home where a body would be dropped off did not have to be informed about the body parts she allegedly kept.
• England has repeatedly asserted that while she took some human remains, she did not intend to keep them.
Jonathan Anderson may be reached at [email protected]
Comments:
You must login to comment.