BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 2457


                                                                    Page  1


          Date of Hearing:  April 5, 2016
          Consultant:           Matt Dean


                         ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY


                       Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair





          AB  
                     2457 (Bloom) - As Introduced  February 19, 2016


                       As Proposed to be Amended in Committee


          SUMMARY:  Allows coroners to use an electronic imaging system  
          during the conduct of an autopsy, unless there is a reasonable  
          suspicion to believe the death was caused by a criminal act or a  
          contagious disease.  Specifically, this bill:  allows coroners,  
          medical examiners and other authorized personnel to conduct an  
          autopsy or post-mortem examination to use an electronic imaging  
          system during the conduct of an autopsy or post-mortem  
          examination to either aid in the performance of an autopsy  
          pursuant to an inquest, or to fulfill the performance of an  
          autopsy requested by the surviving spouse or next of kin where  
          there is no suspicion a criminal act or contagious disease was  
          the cause of death.   

          EXISTING LAW:  

          1)Requires coroners to determine the manner, circumstances and  
            cause of death in the following circumstances:

             a)   Violent, sudden or unusual deaths;

             b)   Unattended deaths;









                                                                    AB 2457


                                                                    Page  2


             c)   When the deceased was not attended by a physician, or  
               registered nurse who is part of a hospice care  
               interdisciplinary team, in the 20 days before death;

             d)   When the death is related to known or suspected  
               self-induced or criminal abortion;

             e)   Known or suspected homicide, suicide or accidental  
               poisoning;

             f)   Deaths suspected as a result of an accident or injury  
               either old or recent;

             g)   Drowning, fire, hanging, gunshot, stabbing, cutting,  
               exposure, starvation, acute alcoholism, drug addiction,  
               strangulation, aspiration, or sudden infant death syndrome;

             h)   Deaths in whole or in part occasioned by criminal means;

             i)   Deaths associated with a known or alleged rape or crime  
               against nature;

             j)   Deaths in prison or while under sentence;

             aa)  Deaths known or suspected as due to contagious disease  
               and constituting a public hazard;

             bb)  Deaths from occupational diseases or occupational  
               hazards;

             cc)  Deaths of patients in state mental hospitals operated by  
               the State Department of State Hospitals;

             dd)  Deaths of patients in state hospitals serving the  
               developmentally disabled operated by the State Department  
               of Development Services;

             ee)  Deaths where a reasonable ground exists to suspect the  
               death was caused by the criminal act of another; and

             ff)  Deaths reported for inquiry by physicians and other  
               persons having knowledge of the death.  (Gov. Code, §  








                                                                    AB 2457


                                                                    Page  3


               27491.)

          2)Requires the coroner or medical examiner to sign the  
            certificate of death when they perform a mandatory inquiry.   
            (Gov. Code, § 27491, subd. (a).)

          3)Allows the coroner or medical examiner discretion when  
            determining the extent of the inquiry required to determine  
            the manner, circumstances and cause of death.  (Gov. Code, §  
            27491, subd. (b).)

          4)Requires the coroner or medical examiner to conduct an autopsy  
            at the request of the surviving spouse or other specified  
            persons when an autopsy has not already been performed.  (Gov.  
            Code, § 27520, subd. (a).)

          5)Allows the coroner or medical examiner discretion to conduct  
            an autopsy at the request of the surviving spouse or other  
            specified persons when an autopsy has already been performed.   
            (Gov. Code, § 27520, subd. (b).)

          6)Specifies that the cost of autopsies requested by the  
            surviving spouse or other specified persons are borne by the  
            requestor.  (Gov. Code, § 27520, subd. (c).)

          7)Requires that discretionary autopsies include the following:

             a)   All available finger and palm prints;

             b)   Dental examination;

             c)   Collection of tissue including hair sample and DNA  
               sample, if necessary;

             d)   Notation and photographs of significant marks, scars,  
               tattoos and personal effects;

             e)   Notation of observations pertinent to the time of death;  
               and

             f)   Documentation of the location of the remains.  (Gov.  
               Code, § 27521, subds. (a) and (b).)








                                                                    AB 2457


                                                                    Page  4



          8)Allows for the use of full body X-rays in conducting a  
            discretionary autopsy.  (Gov. Code, § 27521, subd. (c).)

          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown

          COMMENTS:  

          1)Author's Statement:  According to the author, "AB 2457 is a  
            common sense approach that would specifically authorize county  
            coroners or county medical examiners to utilize digital  
            imaging technology when performing an autopsy in cases where  
            an autopsy is needed or mandated by law."  

          2)Electronic Imaging Systems for Autopsies:  Electronic imaging  
            systems, such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance  
            imaging (MRI) and X-ray computed tomography scanning, have  
            been used increasingly in recent years to assist coroners and  
            medical examiners performing autopsies.  In certain cases,  
            these systems can help the coroner determine the cause of  
            death without performing a post-mortem dissection of the  
            deceased.  This can be especially helpful in cases where the  
            deceased or the deceased's surviving spouse or next of kin  
            have religious objections to the post mortem dissections  
            common in traditional autopsies.  This bill would allow  
            coroners and medical examiners to use these electronic imaging  
            systems during the performance of an autopsy requested by a  
            surviving spouse or next of kin.

          This bill would also allow coroners, medical examiners and other  
            agencies tasked with performing an autopsy to utilize  
            electronic imaging systems to assist in the performance of a  
            mandatory inquest.  Existing law requires coroners and others  
            to perform an autopsy when there is reason to believe the  
            death was caused by a criminal act, either by another or by  
            the deceased, and when the coroner or other agency tasked  
            believes a contagious disease constituting a public health  
            hazard may be the cause of death.  This bill would not allow  
            electronic imaging systems to be the sole method by which  
            these mandatory autopsies are performed, but would allow them  
            to be used during these autopsies.  There are two main reasons  
            for this:  first, electronic imaging systems as a method for  








                                                                    AB 2457


                                                                    Page  5


            performing autopsies have not been ruled admissible as  
            evidence by any court of law; and second, the current  
            electronic imaging system technology has been shown to be  
            unreliable in determining certain causes of death.

          3)Admissibility Concerns:  Any evidence submitted before a court  
            of law must be deemed admissible.  For scientific evidence and  
            expert testimony, the court will conduct either a Daubert or  
            Frye style hearing -depending on whether the case is before  
            federal or state court, respectively) to determine the  
            reliability of the particular type of evidence before the  
            court.  (see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. (1993) 509  
            U.S. 579; People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587.)    To date,  
            no federal or California court has ruled on the admissibility  
            of autopsies performed using an electronic imaging system.   
            Without such a ruling, we cannot be sure that autopsies  
            performed using solely electronic imaging systems will be  
            admissible evidence.  Given the importance of autopsies in  
            many criminal investigations and prosecutions, it would be  
            wise to wait until electronic imaging system technology  
            advances to the point where it would be admissible.  In one  
            study, one in three autopsies performed using both electronic  
            imaging systems and traditional dissection autopsies resulted  
            in finding different causes of death.  
            <  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/will-ct-scans 
            -and-mris-kill-the-autopsy/  > However, the study also found  
            that for certain causes of death, the electronic imaging  
            systems were sufficient.  Allowing coroners to use electronic  
            imaging systems for the limited purposes herein described is a  
            good first step in advancing the utility of these promising  
            technologies.   

          4)Summary of Amendments:  The amendments before the Committee  
            accomplish the mutual goals of allowing coroners, medical  
            examiners and other tasked with performing autopsies the  
            ability to use electronic imaging systems in an autopsy, while  
            maintaining the requirement that whenever there is any  
            suspicion the death was caused by a criminal act or contagious  
            disease, a dissection autopsy is used to determine the cause  
            of death.  This will also achieve the goal of allowing people  
            of faith with religious objections to dissection to receive an  
            electronic imaging autopsy on request.








                                                                    AB 2457


                                                                    Page  6



          5)Argument in Support:  According to Agudath Israel of  
            California, "AB 2457 will allow the use of digital radiologic  
            technology in lieu of an autopsy by dissection. In many  
            coroners' cases, the use of digital radiologic technology is  
            more than adequate to establish a cause of death without the  
            performance of traditional autopsy by dissection. Coroner's  
            offices throughout the country are installing such technology  
            because it assists with completion of their caseloads in a  
            more cost-effective and efficient manner. This is not to say  
            that such technology replaces dissection autopsy, however, at  
            the discretion of the coroner, when such technology is  
            sufficient for their needs, it should be utilized. 

            "There are a number of situations in which some feel that  
            there may be a California state legal mandate for a physical  
            autopsy. This legislation would allow coroners, at their  
            discretion, to utilize digital radiology to fulfill their  
            responsibility. For the Jewish community as well as other  
            communities of faith, autopsies are generally prohibited with  
            certain exceptions. This bill would allow coroners who have  
            access to such radiologic technology to accommodate religious  
            concerns in cases where they see fit to do so."

          6)Related Legislation: 

             a)   SB 1189 (Pan), requires that the results of an autopsy  
               conducted by a coroner be subject to review by a licensed  
               surgeon who is duly qualified as a specialist in pathology.  
               If the coroner and pathologist disagree about a cause of  
               death, this bill would require that the cause of death be  
               subject to review by a separate qualified pathologist. This  
               bill would authorize a coroner who is a qualified  
               pathologist to review and approve his or her own autopsy.   
               SB 1189 is pending in the Senate Committee on Health.

             b)   AB 1737 (McCarty), requires each county to establish an  
               interagency child death review team to assist local  
               agencies in identifying and reviewing suspicious child  
               deaths and facilitating communication among persons who  
               perform autopsies and the various persons and agencies  
               involved in child abuse or neglect cases.  AB 1737 is  








                                                                    AB 2457


                                                                    Page  7


               pending in the Assembly Committee on Local Government.

          7)Prior Legislation:  

             a)   SB 1196 (Runner), Chapter 45, Statutes of 2008, requires  
               coroners or medical examiners to perform an autopsy at the  
               request of the deceased's next of kin and requires coroners  
               or medical examiners to inquire into deaths when the  
               deceased was not attended to by a physician or registered  
               nurse in the 20 days prior to death.


          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

          Support
          
          Agudath Israel of California
          California State Coroners' Association

          Opposition
          
          None
            
          Analysis Prepared  
          by:              Matt Dean / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744