A judge said Tuesday she is inclined to dismiss part of a cross-complaint filed by Los Angeles County against a cremation service stemming from the accidental cremation of a 26-year-old man who died in 2016.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Holly Fujie said in a tentative ruling that she agreed with lawyers for Community Crematory of Whittier Inc. that the county was wrong to file a cause of action against the company for failure to identify the human remains of Jorge Geovanny Hernandez.
“The court finds that the claim is objectively unreasonable because the contract lacks express language to support the kind of identification system that (the county lawyers) believe Community Crematory had with respect to identifying human remains,” Fujie wrote.
The judge said she may issue a final decision by the end of the day.
Jorge Alberto Hernandez and Mirna Amaya, the father and mother of the decedent, filed the underlying lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the coroner’s office in April 2017, alleging negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Hernandez died of a drug overdoseon Oct. 7, 2016, after being taken to Glendale Adventist Medical Center. His body was picked up by the coroner’s office to determine the exact cause and he was cremated on Oct. 17, 2016.
According to the lawsuit, Hernandez’s family planned to cremate his body, but wanted to stage a final viewing beforehand and allow for photos to be taken of him “resting peacefully in his coffin.”
On Oct. 18, 2016, a coroner’s representative called Amaya and said, “I’m sorry, the cremation was in error, your son was cremated,” the suit states.
Coroner’s officials previously said the mistake occurred because a technician failed to check the case number on the body and that the office issued an apology to the decedent’s family. The officials said there were two men named Jorge Hernandez at the morgue and that the other man, who was indigent, was scheduled to be cremated.
Los Angeles County subsequently filed a cross-complaint alleging Community Crematory was responsible for the cremation and that the county had a contract with the company obligating it to defend and compensate the county under a contract. The contract also obligated Community Crematory to obtain insurance that would defend the county from actions arising out of Community Crematory’s conduct, according to the cross-complaint.
The county further alleges it is an additional insured under a policy that Ohio Security Insurance Co. Inc. issued to Community Crematory. The county alleges that Ohio Security, also named in the cross-complaint, refused its request to defend the county in the underlying suit.