Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1987 )


Menu:
  • Eonorable Mark 8. Dettman               Opinion No. ~~-643
    Midland County Attorney
    P. 0. Box 2559                          Re: Liability of a county for
    Midland, Texas   79702                  medical care of indigent inmates
    of a county jail
    Dear Mr. Dettman:
    You inquire about liability for medical treatment for nonresident
    Indigent prisoners incarcerated in the Midland County jail. Speci-
    fically, you ask whether the term "welfare patient" as used in the act
    creating the Midland County Hospital District includes nonresident
    indigent prisoners indarcerated in the county jail when the prisoners'
    residences are in areas not served by a hospital district. We
    conclude that responsibility for medical treatment for a "welfare
    patientu incarcerated in the county jail whose residence is not within
    a hospital district is determined by article 104.002 of the Code of
    Criminal Procedure.
    The Midland County Hospital District is created under authority
    of article IX, section 9. of the Texas Constitution, by chapter 112,
    Sixty-fifth Legislature, 1977. See V.T.C.S. art. 4494q. The district
    includes all of Midland County. Section 19 of that act provides
    principally for liability for care and treatment of a patient residing
    within that hospital district who has been admitted to the district's
    facilities. It also contains the following provision:
    If a welfare patient is admitted to the district's
    facilities and is not a resident of the district,
    the district may seek reimbursement from the
    county of the residency of the patient and may sue
    for reimbursement.
    Acts 1977. 65th Leg., ch. 112, 519. at 242.
    The section-by-section analysis of the bill creating the Midland
    County Hospital District includes the following analysis of section
    19:
    Section 19. Board to inquire into patient's
    ability to pay with recourse as well to relatives.
    Inability to pay will cause the patient to become
    a charge on the District. Disputes, hearings,
    appeals.   Board may seek reimbursement from
    p. 2917
    Eonorable Mark H. Dettman - Page 2   UM-643)
    indigents home county (indigent defined as welfare
    patient). May sue.
    See Bill Analysis to S.B. No. 1210 prepared for House Committee on
    Intergovernmental Affairs, filed in Bill File to S.B. No. 1210,
    Legislative Reference Library.    Hence, it seems clear that the
    legislature intends "welfare patient" in that act to be synonymous
    with "indigent patient."
    Expenses for prisoners confined In a county jail are the subject
    of article 104.002 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides
    that:
    (a) Except as otherwise provided by this
    article, a county Is liable for all expenses
    incurred in the safekeeping of prisoners confined
    in the county jail or kept under guard by the
    county. If a prisoner is transferred to a county
    from another county on a change of venue. for
    safekeeping, or for a habeas corpus hearing. the
    county transferring the prlsoner'is liable for the
    expenses described by this article.
    Article 104.002 is a recodification of several procedural statutes,
    including articles 1037 and 1040 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
    (Vernon 19251, which governed the liability of a county for the
    medical care and treatment of indigent prisoners.     Article 1037
    provided that:
    Each County shall be liable for all expenses
    incurred on account of the safe keeping of
    prisoners confined in jail or kept under guard,
    except prisoners brought from another county for
    safe keeping, or on habeas corpus or change of
    venue ; in which cases, the county from which the
    prisoner is brought shall be liable      for the
    expense of his safe keeping. (Emphasis added).
    Article 1040 provided in part as follows:
    For the safekeeping, support and maintenance of
    prisoners confined in jail or under guard, the
    sheriff shall be allowed the following charges:
    .   .   .   .
    3. For necessary medical bill and reasonable
    extra compensation for attention to a prisoner
    during sickness, such an amount as the commis-
    sioners court of the county where the prisoner is
    confined may determine to be just and proper.
    (Emphasis added).
    p. 2918
    Eonorable Mark H. Dcttman - Page 3   (JM-643)
    Article IX, section 9, of the Texas Constitution, under which the
    Midland County Hospital Authority is created, provides, in part, that
    a hospital district created thereunder
    shall assume full responsibility for providing
    medical and hospital care for its needy in-
    habitants. . . .
    On several  occasions, this office has considered the liability of a
    county for medical services provided to indigent persons incarcerated
    in county jails when the person is a resident of a hospital district.
    Those opinions concluded that the hospital district of which an
    indigent prisoner Is a resident, rather than the county of incarcera-
    tion, is liable for the medical care and treatment of an indigent
    prisoner. See Attorney General Opinions JM-487 (1986); H-703 (1975);
    M-870 (1971r The rationale for that conclusion is that articles 1037
    and 1040 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must yield to the express
    broad language in article IX, section 9, of the Texas Constitution.
    Subject to constitutional provisions, the liability for care and
    treatment of indigent persons and Indigent prisoners is now governed
    by article 104.002 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indigent
    Health Care and Treatment Act. codified as article 4438f, V.T.C.S.
    Under the Indigent Health Care Act, (1) a county is liable for health
    care assistance of its eligible residents who do not reside in an
    area served by a public hospital or hospital district, (2) a public
    hospital is responsible for health care assistance to eligible
    residents of the area served by the hospital, and (3) a hospital
    district is liable for.health care services as provided by the Texas
    Constitution and the statute creating the hospital district.
    The Indigent Health Care Act does not expressly amend or repeal
    any part of articles 1037 and 1040. A repeal of statutes by implica-
    tion is never favored or presumed. It has long been well established
    that a repeal by implication will be adjudged only if that result   is
    inevitable or is plainly intended by the legislature. See Texas 6
    N.O. Railway Co. v. Kelso Building Material Co., 250 S.W.2d426, 430
    (Tex. Civ. App. - Galveston 1952, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Berry V. State,
    
    156 S.W. 626
    , 635 (Tex. Grim. App. 1913); Parshall V. State, 
    138 S.W. 759
    . 765 (Tex. Grim. ADD. 1911). Statutes which deal with the same
    general subject and ha-& the same general purpose are considered as
    in para materia and must be construed together and harmonized. if
    possible, so as to give effect to both statutes, with a special
    statute governing a general statute in the event of any conflict. See
    Lingner v.,Haley, 
    277 S.W.2d 302
    , 306 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1954,
    writ dism d); Hines V. State, 
    515 S.W.2d 670
    , 675 (Tex. Crim. App.
    1974).
    The Indigent Health Care Act, article 4438f. is a broad statute
    providing for the expenses of health care for indigent persons in
    general. Article 104.002 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals
    specifically with expenses incurred in the safekeeping of prisoners
    p. 2919
    Honorable Mark H. Dettman - Page 4      (JM-643)
    confined in a county jail. A general law will not ordinarily be held
    to have repealed by implication a particular or special law although
    both relate to the same subject. The more particular law usually is
    construed as constituting an exception to the general law. American
    Canal Co. of Texas v. Dow Chemical Co., 
    380 S.W.2d 662
    , 666 (Tex. Civ.
    APP. - Houston 1964. writ dism'd).
    We conclude that article 104.002, which provides that the county
    of incarceration is liable for all expanses including medical care of
    an indigent prisoner, constitutes an exception to the Indigent Realth
    Care Act for an indigent person who is not a resident of a hospital
    district.   It follows that the provision of the Midland County
    Eospital District Act which authorizes the hospital district to sue
    for reimbursement from the county of residence of an indigent patient
    who is not a resident of the Midland County Eospital Dfstrict is not
    applicable to an indigent prisoner in the Midland County jail whose
    residence is in an area not within a hospital district and, hence, not
    governed by article IX, section 9 , of the Texas Constitution.
    SUMMARY
    Medical care and treatment for a nonresident
    indigent prisoner in a county jail who is a
    resident of an area within a hospital district is
    the responsibility of the hospital district, as
    provided by article IX, section 9. of the Texas
    Constitution. Medical care and treatment for a
    nonresident indigent prisoner In a county jail
    whose residence is not within a hospital district
    is the responsibility of the county of incarcera-
    tion, as provided by article 104.002 of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure.
    Very truly yours,
    Ll        A
    JIM     MATTOX
    Attorney General of Texas
    JACK HIGHTOWKR
    First Assistant Attorney General
    MARY KELLER
    Executive Assistant Attorney General
    RICK GILPIN
    Chairman, Opinion Committee
    Prepared by Nancy Sutton
    Assistant Attorney General
    p. 2920
    

Document Info

Docket Number: JM-643

Judges: Jim Mattox

Filed Date: 7/2/1987

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017