After a FactFinder 12 investigation and two state investigations, a Wichita funeral home owner is disciplined for unethical business practices. The Kansas State Board of Mortuary Arts ordered Doug Watson, owner of Watson Funeral Home, to refund a family $967.32 for overcharging for a funeral service. The order also requires Watson to pay a $500 fine, attend ten hours of approved continuing education in the area of ethics in funeral directing and be publically censured.
How It Started
In July 2009, a former Watson Funeral Home employee filed a complaint with the Kansas State Board of Mortuary Arts. The employee accused owner Doug Watson of numerous unethical business practices. The KSBMA investigated but found no wrongdoing. In 2010, the former employee came to us with her concerns. We took another look at the KSBMA investigation and found problems.
Case 1 – Overcharged
Patty Newkirk buried her mother, Beverly, in March 2009. The arrangements had been made in advance through Watson Funeral Home and payment was being handled through insurance. But the day of the funeral, Patty was asked to pay an additional $1185.
“I just wrote the check and gave it to them and trusted that it was how it needed to be,” said Newkirk. “I wasn’t thinking about the money very much because of all the grief that you're feeling on a day like that.”
What Newkirk didn’t know was that months later, the state would investigate her mother’s case and others. She didn’t know because the state investigator never contacted her as part of the investigation. It wasn’t until we called that she knew there were allegations of wrongdoing with her mother’s service.
We compared the original funeral contract and the final funeral contract. It was the cemetery expense that jumped hundreds of dollars. We contacted Merle McKee who runs the Mulvane cemetery where Newkirk’s mother was buried.
“The charges are not our charges,” McKee said.
In addition, Newkirk noticed the signature on the final funeral contract was not hers.
“It’s certainly not mine or anyone from my family and that really seems illegal to me to have put some other person’s signature on a contract that’s supposed to be a final contract,” said Newkirk.
When questioned, Watson told the state investigator he had nothing to do with Newkirk’s mother’s funeral service.
“The arrangement happened during a time he was having surgery,” writes the state investigator after interviewing Watson.
But when we asked Newkirk, she says that’s a lie.
“I definitely arranged it with him the Friday before her burial,” said Newkirk. “There's no way he was gone or at surgery at the time.” After we presented Newkirk with our findings, she filed a formal complaint with KSBMA. Our information and her complaint prompted the state to take a second look and reinvestigate.
A Second State Investigation
The state investigator reinterviewed Watson in March 2011. When asked about this new information, Watson changed his story.
This time Watson admits making funeral arrangements with Newkirk and says he was actually part of the funeral service. The state investigator even notes Watson’s statements are “different from what he said when interviewed (in August 2009 for the first investigation).”
Watson also makes other statements during the second investigation that directly contradict what he said during the first investigation.
Case 2 – Cremation and the Casket
For example, in 2008, a Wichita family paid Watson Funeral Home $4550 for a Pembroke Cherry casket to be used for a funeral and cremation. Two former Watson Funeral Home employees later told the state owner Doug Watson had workers take the man out of the casket, put him in a cardboard container then reuse the casket to save money.
The state looked into the allegations and interviewed Watson in August 2009. Here’s what the state investigator wrote in his report.
“Watson said that the assistant funeral director handled the case and believed that the deceased was cremated in a Batesville Pembroke Cherry casket purchased by the wife of the deceased for funeral and cremation,” writes the state investigator. “He does not remember the deceased being removed from the casket prior to cremation.”
The state investigator did not contact the family involved and closed the case.
We did contact the family who requested we not identify them. They told us they dealt exclusively with Watson the entire time. The family is Buddhist and as part of tradition, they rake through the ashes of their loved one immediately after cremation. At the time, the family thought it was strange that there were no remnants, like handles or other metal casket hardware, left. The family says the only remaining metal was a thin wire which was part of a floral display.
When the state investigator reinterviewed Watson in March 2011, Watson changed his story. Whereas before Watson said he did not remember the deceased being removed from the casket, he now says “he agrees that the body was removed from the casket and temporarily placed on an air tray, cremation container or dressing container. This was done, so the metal bed in the casket could be removed prior to cremation. Once the metal bed was removed from the casket, the body was placed back in the casket and cremation occurred.”
Watson’s contradictory statements were still not enough for the state investigator to contact the family. The state investigator says unless there is enough evidence, a family will not be notified of a pending investigation.
“The difference in the responses provided by Mr. Watson was noted and discussed by the Investigative Committee,” said the state investigator.
The two former employees also believed the casket in question was returned to the Batesville Casket warehouse. The state subpoenaed casket records from the Bateville Casket Company. There was no record of a Pembroke Cherry casket being returned during the time in question. The KSBMA took no action against Watson on this case.
Case 3 – Casket Confusion
A third case involves questions about whether the casket purchased was actually the casket used. The case involves a family who had a prearranged funeral. A former funeral home worker reported Watson had her order a cheaper, lesser quality casket because “the family was from out-of-town and wouldn’t know the difference.”
When we looked at the funeral paperwork, we couldn’t tell which casket was even used. Watson’s paperwork showed three different casket names. When the state investigator asked Watson about it during the first investigation, Watson combined the names of two separate caskets and made up a fourth name of a casket which doesn’t even exist.
When the state investigator re-interviewed Watson in March 2011, Watson denied he did anything wrong. He claims the original casket the family had selected was not available at the time of their loved ones’ death. Watson says he provided a casket of more than equal value as the casket originally selected. He explains the casket name confusion by stating “while the Athena is considered the corporate name of the casket, the casket is also called Primrose.”
We found this is false. A quick check with an online casket dealer show the “Athena” and “Primrose” are two separate caskets. In addition, we called three funeral homes around the country that sell this line of caskets. All confirm the “Athena” and “Primrose” are not the same. It’s another lie by Watson and another case the state did nothing about.
We went back to the state investigator to ask why.
“The difference in the caskets was also discussed (by the KSBMA),” said the state investigator. “Both caskets in question were 18 gauge caskets with a minimal cost difference.” The KSBMA took no action against Watson in this case.
So What Did The State Do?
Of the three cases we questioned, Newkirk’s is the only one the KSBMA took action on. Once again, just as we discovered with our initial investigation, the state didn’t contact any of the other families in the complaint.
The state investigator declined an on-camera interview but says he stands by both investigations. He says there’s no reason to contact families and cause additional trauma to those who have lost a loved one unless there’s evidence to do so. But Newkirk believes families should have the right to know if there’s any inkling of wrongdoing.
“I would want them to contact me if there had been any sign that there was misconduct,” said Newkirk. “I think they should at least get the family's version of it and find out more information.”
Newkirk believes without our investigation which prompted her to file a formal complaint, she never would’ve known.
“They weren't interested in finding anything more out,” said Newkirk. “It was totally up to me to bring it to them.”
Newkirk says it’s not about the money. She says it’s about knowing the state is doing its job to make sure the funeral business is taking care of loved ones ethically and respectfully. For now, she questions whether that’s being done in Kansas.
Two Other Legal Issues
Brotemarkle case
Doug Watson and wife, Cynthia Dantic-Watson, are also being sued by the estate of former school teacher and real estate agent Nadine Brotemarkle. Wichita attorney Harry Najim filed the case and accuses the couple of befriending Brotemarkle, getting her to loan them $510,000 then failing to pay back the loans after her death.
“Watson and Dantic-Watson carefully orchestrated a plan to hoodwink Mrs. Brotemarkle, knowing that they did not and would not have the funds to repay the loans,” said Najim in the court petition. Najim alleges the money was used to pay off funeral home debt. He’s suing for the loan amount and interest which comes to $533,213. The case was filed in March. Through court paperwork, the couple has denied the allegations. The case is scheduled for a jury trial February 7th, 2012.
Guardian issue
In 2007, Doug Watson was appointed power of attorney for an 86 year-old disabled Butler County woman. In August 2011, the woman’s family filed a court petition to have Watson removed as power of attorney. Attorney Logan Brown writes in the court petition “there is an imminent danger that the estate will be significantly depleted unless action is taken to protect the estate.” Brown’s petition says Watson has not provided any accounting to the family since he has taken over assisting with the woman’s financial matters and the family believes Watson has breached a fiduciary duty by self-dealing and failing to account for funds.
Allegations include Watson writing checks on the woman’s account to “cash” and used the money to pay for business expenses for Watson Funeral Home.
In September 2011, the court granted a new guardian for the woman. The new guardian requests Watson work with the IRS to provide tax returns from 2004 to present.
The former funeral home employee did mention both situations in her original complaint with the KSBMA. The state investigator says the board may look at any resulting legal action to see if disciplinary action is necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment