Harvard University can be held legally accountable for the alleged mishandling of donated human remains that were later sold on the black market, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Monday.
The state’s highest court said families who entrusted Harvard Medical School with the bodies of loved ones may proceed with their lawsuits, which accuse the university of failing to prevent a former morgue manager’s years-long scheme to steal and sell cadaver parts.
Court: Harvard “Failed Miserably” in Its Duty
The unanimous ruling reverses an earlier decision that had dismissed the families’ claims. Writing for the court, Justice Scott Kafker said Harvard had a legal duty to treat donated remains with dignity — a duty it did not uphold.
“It had a legal obligation to provide for the dignified treatment and disposal of the donated human remains, and failed miserably in this regard,” Kafker wrote.
The court also reinstated claims against the managing director of Harvard’s anatomical gift program, citing evidence that oversight failures may have allowed the alleged crimes to continue unchecked for years.
Former Morgue Manager’s “Macabre Scheme”
At the center of the case is Cedric Lodge, Harvard’s former morgue manager, who pleaded guilty in May to transporting stolen goods across state lines. Prosecutors say that beginning in 2018, Lodge stole body parts from cadavers used for research — including heads, skin, organs, and brains — and sold them from his home in Goffstown, New Hampshire.
Lodge and his wife allegedly made repeated sales to buyers online and in person until his indictment in 2023. He is currently awaiting sentencing.
Families Allege Negligence and Lack of Oversight
A total of 12 lawsuits representing 47 families claim Harvard failed to safeguard the donated remains, allowing Lodge to dismember and traffic them without detection.
Plaintiffs accuse the university of negligence and bad faith, arguing it “turned a blind eye” to misconduct that persisted for years inside its Boston morgue.
A lower court had initially ruled that Harvard was immune under Massachusetts’ Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, which provides protection for organizations acting in good faith when handling body donations. But the Supreme Judicial Court found that the families had alleged enough evidence to question Harvard’s compliance with the law.
The university and the plaintiffs’ attorneys have not commented publicly on the ruling.
