Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 313 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123 (2026)

Removal and disposal of autopsy specimens - good faith immunity of coroner

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
August 17, 2006
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 235 - 126th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A)(1) As used in this chapter, "autopsy" means the external and internal examination of the body of a deceased person, including, but not limited to, gross visual inspection and dissection of the body and its internal organs, photographic or narrative documentation of findings, microscopic, radiological, toxicological, chemical, or other laboratory analyses performed in the discretion of the examining individual upon tissues, organs, blood, other bodily fluids, gases, or any other specimens and the retention for diagnostic and documentary purposes of tissues, organs, blood, other bodily fluids, gases, or any other specimens as the examining individual considers necessary to establish and defend against challenges to the cause and manner of death of the deceased person.

(2) As used in this section, "DNA specimen" has the same meaning as in section 109.573 of the Revised Code.

(B)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(2) of this section, retained tissues, organs, blood, other bodily fluids, gases, or any other specimens from an autopsy are medical waste and shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, including any protocol rules adopted under section 313.122 of the Revised Code.

(2) If an autopsy is performed on a deceased person and pursuant to section 313.131 of the Revised Code the coroner has reason to believe that the autopsy is contrary to the deceased person's religious beliefs, the coroner shall not remove any specimens, including, but not limited to, tissues, organs, blood, or other bodily fluids, from the body of the deceased person unless removing those specimens from the body of the deceased person is a compelling public necessity. Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(3) of this section, if the coroner removes any specimens from the body of the deceased person, the coroner shall return the specimens, as soon as is practicable, to the person who has the right to the disposition of the body.

(3) The coroner may retain a DNA specimen for diagnostic, evidentiary, or confirmatory purposes.

(C) A cause of action shall not lie against any employee of a coroner's office for requesting, ordering, or performing an autopsy in good faith under the authority of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2008–2017 · leading case: Albrecht v. Treon, 889 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Albrecht v. Treon, 889 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 11× “123, effective August 2006, which now expressly governs retained autopsy specimens, classifying them as medical waste and authorizing the coroner to dispose of them as such. Ohio Statutes at the Time Pertinent to This Case {¶ 29} Even before R.”
Waeschle v. Dragovic, 576 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev.Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
Granato v. Davis, 2014 Ohio 5572 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “{¶ 55} Notably, in 2006, the Ohio legislature enacted R.C. 313.123, which provided that, with limited exceptions, “tissues, organs, blood, other bodily fluids, gases, or any other specimens from an autopsy are medical waste and shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable…”
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Gen. Health Dist., 2017 Ohio 1084 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “” R.C. 313.123(A)(1). {¶8} Dr. Kessler is not a pathologist so he does not personally perform autopsies or related testing.”
Karen Waeschle v. Ljubisa Dragovic (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
Karen Waeschle v. Ljubisa Dragovic (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(A)(1) — 2 cases
Albrecht v. Treon, 889 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio 2008). “123, effective August 2006, which now expressly governs retained autopsy specimens, classifying them as medical waste and authorizing the coroner to dispose of them as such. Ohio Statutes at the Time Pertinent to This Case {¶ 29} Even before R.”
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Gen. Health Dist., 2017 Ohio 1084 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “” R.C. 313.123(A)(1). {¶8} Dr. Kessler is not a pathologist so he does not personally perform autopsies or related testing.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(B) — 3 cases
Waeschle v. Dragovic, 576 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2009). “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev.Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
Karen Waeschle v. Ljubisa Dragovic (6th Cir. 2009). “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
Karen Waeschle v. Ljubisa Dragovic (6th Cir. 2009). “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(B)(1) — 5 cases
Waeschle v. Dragovic, 576 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2009). “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev.Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
Albrecht v. Treon, 889 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio 2008). “123, effective August 2006, which now expressly governs retained autopsy specimens, classifying them as medical waste and authorizing the coroner to dispose of them as such. Ohio Statutes at the Time Pertinent to This Case {¶ 29} Even before R.”
Granato v. Davis, 2014 Ohio 5572 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 55} Notably, in 2006, the Ohio legislature enacted R.C. 313.123, which provided that, with limited exceptions, “tissues, organs, blood, other bodily fluids, gases, or any other specimens from an autopsy are medical waste and shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable…”
Karen Waeschle v. Ljubisa Dragovic (6th Cir. 2009). “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
Karen Waeschle v. Ljubisa Dragovic (6th Cir. 2009). “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(B)(2) — 4 cases
Waeschle v. Dragovic, 576 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2009). “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev.Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
Albrecht v. Treon, 889 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio 2008). “123, effective August 2006, which now expressly governs retained autopsy specimens, classifying them as medical waste and authorizing the coroner to dispose of them as such. Ohio Statutes at the Time Pertinent to This Case {¶ 29} Even before R.”
Karen Waeschle v. Ljubisa Dragovic (6th Cir. 2009). “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
Karen Waeschle v. Ljubisa Dragovic (6th Cir. 2009). “at 126 (holding that “[e]ven before [Ohio Rev. Code § 313.123(B)] was enacted, a deceased’s next of kin had no protected right in autopsy specimens pursuant to Ohio statutes”).”
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.