Massachusetts SJC Revives Claims Against Harvard in Morgue Scandal

In a significant decision issued on February 10, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed the scope of liability and the good faith defense under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) in the wake of a high-profile scandal at Harvard Medical School’s morgue. The case arose after Cedric Lodge, an employee responsible for handling cadavers, was indicted and later pleaded guilty to trafficking in stolen human remains, having stolen and sold body parts from donated cadavers over several years. Forty-seven plaintiffs, all relatives of donors whose remains were potentially mishandled, brought suit against Harvard, its officials, and employees, alleging gross misconduct and inadequate oversight.

The Court reversed the dismissal of claims against Harvard and the managing director of its Anatomical Gift Program (AGP), Mark F. Cicchetti, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a lack of good faith under the UAGA due to “peculiarly pervasive noncompliance.” However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Tracey Fay, the AGP manager, finding insufficient factual allegations of her noncompliance.

Factual Background

Harvard Medical School’s AGP has, since the 1960s, facilitated the donation and use of human bodies for medical education and research. The program’s operations included the storage, use, and final disposition of donated remains. During the relevant period, the AGP was staffed by three full-time employees: Cicchetti (managing director), Fay (manager), and Lodge (staff assistant responsible for morgue operations).

Between 2018 and 2023, Lodge engaged in a criminal conspiracy to steal and sell body parts from donated cadavers, often allowing unauthorized individuals access to the morgue. The scheme was uncovered following a federal investigation, leading to Lodge’s indictment and subsequent guilty plea. Harvard responded by notifying affected families, commissioning an external review, and implementing enhanced security measures.

Plaintiffs alleged that Harvard and its officials failed to provide adequate oversight, ignored industry guidance and prior warnings (including a similar scandal at UCLA), and failed to implement basic security and tracking protocols, resulting in the mishandling and desecration of donated remains.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed twelve consolidated lawsuits in 2023, asserting claims including negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and statutory violations. The Superior Court dismissed all claims, holding that Harvard, Cicchetti, and Fay were entitled to the UAGA’s good faith defense, which shields individuals and entities from liability if they act in good faith in accordance with the Act.

The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the good faith defense should not apply to post-procurement conduct and, alternatively, that the defendants’ conduct constituted a lack of good faith.

Analysis

Scope of the Good Faith Defense

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the UAGA’s good faith defense applies to the entire anatomical donation process, including the final disposition of remains, not merely the procurement stage. The Court emphasized that the Act’s purpose is to encourage anatomical gifts by reducing legal uncertainty while ensuring dignified treatment of human remains.

Peculiarly Pervasive Noncompliance

The Court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations against Harvard and Cicchetti plausibly suggested “peculiarly pervasive noncompliance” with the Act’s requirements, sufficient to overcome the good faith defense at the motion to dismiss stage. The Court highlighted:

• The prolonged and egregious nature of the misconduct, involving the dismemberment and sale of remains over several years;
• Harvard’s failure to implement adequate controls, oversight, and security measures, despite known risks and industry guidance;
• The lack of proper tracking and documentation of remains, as identified by an external expert panel;
• The foreseeability of harm, given prior similar incidents at other institutions.

The Court distinguished this level of noncompliance from isolated acts of negligence, finding that the allegations supported an inference of a lack of good faith by Harvard and Cicchetti.

Individual Liability

As to Cicchetti, the Court found that his supervisory and compliance responsibilities, coupled with the alleged failure to detect or prevent Lodge’s conduct, were sufficient to support claims of noncompliance. In contrast, the Court found that the allegations against Fay, who had primarily administrative duties and limited presence in the morgue, were conclusory and unsupported by specific facts, and thus insufficient to overcome the good faith defense.

Respondeat Superior

The Court affirmed dismissal of respondeat superior claims, holding that Lodge’s criminal conduct was outside the scope of his employment and not attributable to Harvard or Cicchetti under vicarious liability principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the dismissal of claims against Harvard and Cicchetti, allowing the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed on the basis that they had adequately alleged a lack of good faith under the UAGA due to peculiarly pervasive noncompliance. The Court affirmed the dismissal of all claims against Fay. The case has been remanded for further proceedings.

Impact

This decision clarifies the scope of the UAGA’s good faith defense in Massachusetts, confirming its applicability to the entire anatomical donation process and setting a high bar for institutional compliance. The ruling underscores the importance of robust oversight, security, and compliance protocols in anatomical gift programs, and signals that pervasive failures in these areas may expose institutions to liability notwithstanding statutory defenses. Institutions handling anatomical gifts should review and, where necessary, enhance their policies and practices to ensure compliance with statutory and industry standards.