16 C.F.R. § 453.5

Services provided without prior approval

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In selling or offering to sell funeral goods or funeral services to the public, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice for any provider to embalm a deceased human body for a fee unless:

(1) State or local law or regulation requires embalming in the particular circumstances regardless of any funeral choice which the family might make; or

(2) Prior approval for embalming (expressly so described) has been obtained from a family member or other authorized person; or

(3) The funeral provider is unable to contact a family member or other authorized person after exercising due diligence, has no reason to believe the family does not want embalming performed, and obtains subsequent approval for embalming already performed (expressly so described). In seeking approval, the funeral provider must disclose that a fee will be charged if the family selects a funeral which requires embalming, such as a funeral with viewing, and that no fee will be charged if the family selects a service which does not require embalming, such as direct cremation or immediate burial.

(b) Preventive requirement. To prevent these unfair or deceptive acts or practices, funeral providers must include on the itemized statement of funeral goods and services selected, required by § 453.2(b)(5), the statement: “If you selected a funeral that may require embalming, such as a funeral with viewing, you may have to pay for embalming. You do not have to pay for embalming you did not approve if you selected arrangements such as a direct cremation or immediate burial. If we charged for embalming, we will explain why below.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1984–2018 · leading case: Klamath Tribute Ctr., LLC v. State Mortuary & Cemetery Bd., 419 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Klamath Tribute Ctr., LLC v. State Mortuary & Cemetery Bd., 419 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “In its first assignment of error, petitioner argues that the board misinterpreted 16 CFR section 453.5 and erroneously concluded that petitioner violated that regulation.”

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Hughes, 710 F. Supp. 1524 (N.D. Tex. 1989). “Mandatory Embalming Disclosure 16 C.F.R. § 453.5 (b) requires funeral providers to place on the contract a particular written disclosure concerning embalming.”

Harry & Bryant Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 726 F.2d 993 (4th Cir. 1984). “16 C.F.R. § 453.5 (1983). The record indicates that embalming without express permission is a widespread practice.”

Gordon v. State Mortuary & Cemetery Bd., 419 P.3d 792 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “In his third assignment of error, petitioner argues that the board misinterpreted 16 CFR section 453.5 and thereby committed legal error when it concluded that he violated that rule by failing to state the reasons for embalming on multiple decedents' Statements of Funeral Goods…”

— 16 C.F.R. § 453.5(b) — 1 case

Klamath Tribute Ctr., LLC v. State Mortuary & Cemetery Bd., 419 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “In its first assignment of error, petitioner argues that the board misinterpreted 16 CFR section 453.5 and erroneously concluded that petitioner violated that regulation.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.