MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PAGE 1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 DALLAS DIVISION 

DENNIS OSTIC, et al., § 

 § 

 Plaintiffs, § 

 § 

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1804-N 

 § 

UNITED REGIONAL HEALTH § 

CARE SYSTEM, et al., § 

 §

 Defendants. § 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

 This Order addresses motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint by 

Defendants United Regional Health Care System (“United”) [36] and Scheila Farnsworth 

Watson [35]. Because Plaintiffs still have not pled facts sufficient to state a claim, the 

Court grants the motions. 

I. ORIGINS OF THE MOTIONS

 This case arises from a dispute over the custody and control of the remains of Lisa 

Marie Montoya. Lisa passed away on July 17, 2022 while in the care of United Regional 

Hospital in Wichita Falls, Texas. Am. Compl. ¶ 10 [34]. Lisa previously executed a 

medical power of attorney granting her maternal aunt, Patricia Reishus, authority to make 

any and all healthcare decisions on Lisa’s behalf in the event of her incapacitation. Id. ¶ 14. 

Plaintiffs Dennis and Janet Ostic, Lisa’s biological father and stepmother, allege that on 

July 19, 2022, they discovered that United Regional Hospital had sent Lisa’s remains to 

the University of North Texas Health Science Center (“UNTHSC”) as part of the “willed 

Case 3:22-cv-01804-N Document 43 Filed 06/05/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID 292
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PAGE 2 

body program” to help educate future health professionals. Id. ¶ 22. The Ostics called 

UNTHSC to determine who had authorized the donation and were informed that Watson, 

Lisa’s mother-in-law from her first marriage,1

 had signed the relevant paperwork. Id. ¶ 26. 

 The Ostics assert that as Lisa’s biological father and stepmother, they retained 

higher authority than Watson to make medical decisions under Texas Health and Safety 

Code Section 692A.009(a). Furthermore, the Ostics contend that other individuals who 

may have had greater authority than them under the statute still would not have authorized 

the donation. Id. ¶¶ 27–29. The Ostics filed this suit against United and Watson alleging 

negligence, negligent undertaking, and fraud. The Court previously dismissed the Ostics’ 

claims but granted leave to amend. Order Granting Mot. Dismiss 6 [33]. The Ostics 

amended their complaint to allege claims of negligence and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress. United and Watson again move to dismiss the Ostics’ claims under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

II. RULE 12(B)(6) LEGAL STANDARD

 When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must determine whether 

the plaintiff has asserted a legally sufficient claim for relief. Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 

42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). “When reviewing a motion to dismiss, a district court 

must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as . . . documents incorporated into the 

complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Funk v. 

Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). A 

1

 Lisa was separated from her second husband, Joseph Montoya, though still married, at 

the time of her death. Am. Compl. ¶ 12. 

Case 3:22-cv-01804-N Document 43 Filed 06/05/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID 293
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PAGE 3 

viable complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To meet this “facial 

plausibility” standard, a plaintiff must “plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A court generally accepts well-pleaded facts as true 

and construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Gines v. D.R. 

Horton, Inc., 699 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2012). But a plaintiff must provide “more than 

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 

not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted). “Factual allegations must 

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that 

all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. (internal citations 

omitted). 

III. THE COURT GRANTS THE MOTION TO DISMISS

A. Mr. Ostic Has Not Plead the Unavailability of Higher Priority Individuals 

The Texas Health and Safety Code sets out guidelines for the disposition of remains 

and their subsequent use as anatomical gifts. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 711.002(a);

§ 692A.009(a). Mr. Ostic falls into the fourth priority category as a surviving parent. See 

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 711.002(a); see also id. § 692A.009(a). Therefore, Mr. 

Ostic could only claim quasi-property rights to Lisa’s remains if there were no higher 

priority individuals “reasonably available to make or to object to the making of an 

anatomical gift.” Id. § 692A.009(c); see also id. § 711.002(a). The amended complaint 

names three higher priority individuals: Reishus, Lisa’s designated medical power of 

Case 3:22-cv-01804-N Document 43 Filed 06/05/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID 294
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PAGE 4 

attorney; Kenneth Walker, Lisa’s current partner and the alternate medical power of 

attorney; and Joseph Montoya, Lisa’s surviving spouse. Am. Compl. ¶ 12, 14, Ex. A ¶ 9 

[34-1]. Although the Ostics allege that Reishus would not, and did not, allow the 

anatomical gift, id. ¶ 27–29, they fail to plead that all three higher priority individuals were 

not reasonably available to make or object to the gift. The Ostics’ argument that these 

individuals were unavailable because they were not notified by United or Watson is 

unpersuasive. The statute does not tie reasonable availability to the actual efforts taken to 

notify the individuals. Rather, the procurement organization must be able to contact the 

individual “without undue effort” and the individual must be “willing and able to act in a 

timely manner.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 692A.002(26). Nothing in the amended 

complaint demonstrates that United or UNTHSC could not contact Reishus, or that Reishus 

would not have responded in a timely manner. As pleaded, Mr. Ostic lacked quasi-property 

rights to Lisa’s remains, and therefore United and Watson owed him no duty. Accordingly, 

the Court dismisses Mr. Ostic’s negligence claims. 

B. Mr. Ostic Has Not Shown That Defendants’ 

 Conduct Caused the Emotional Distress 

To plead intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas law, Mr. Ostic must 

show that: (1) the Defendants acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the Defendants’ conduct 

was extreme and outrageous; (3) the Defendants’ actions caused Mr. Ostic emotional 

distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe. Hersh v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462, 467 

(Tex. 2017). 

Case 3:22-cv-01804-N Document 43 Filed 06/05/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID 295
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PAGE 5 

Mr. Ostic has not plead a causal link between United and Watson’s actions and his 

emotional distress. As discussed in Section II.A, Mr. Ostic did not have quasi-property 

rights to Lisa’s remains because he was not the highest priority individual under the statute. 

There were three higher priority individuals: Reishus, Walker, and Joseph Montoya. 

Although Mr. Ostic has plead facts to show that Reishus would not have approved of the 

donation, Am. Compl. ¶ 29, he has not shown that Walker or Joseph Montoya would have 

stopped the transfer of Lisa’s remains for medical research purposes. Furthermore, Mr. 

Ostic has attributed the severe mental distress he has suffered to an “inability to hold proper 

funeral rights with Lisa’s remains.” Id. at ¶ 46. But he has not shown that the higher 

priority individuals would have allowed him to hold proper funeral rites — severing the 

causal link between the damages he has suffered and Defendants’ actions. As such, the 

Court dismisses Mr. Ostic’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. 

CONCLUSION

 Because the Ostics have not pled facts sufficient to state a claim under Rule 

12(b)(6), the Court grants the motions to dismiss. 

 

 Signed June 5, 2023. 

 ___________________________ 

 David C. Godbey 

 Chief United States District Judge 

Case 3:22-cv-01804-N Document 43 Filed 06/05/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID 296