Can a Texas county take money from a jail inmate's account for past medical bills?

TX AG Opinion GA-0534: Can a county take jail account money for old medical bills?

Plain-English summary

The Texas Commission on Jail Standards asked whether a county may pull money from a county-jail inmate's commissary account to recover the cost of medical care the inmate had received during an earlier stay in the same jail. The account in question is the one made up of money taken from the inmate at booking, earned while incarcerated, or sent in by others for the inmate's use, used to make purchases at the jail commissary.

The starting point is Code of Criminal Procedure article 104.002. A county is generally liable for the expenses of safekeeping its prisoners, but subarticle (d) makes a prisoner who received medical, dental, or health-related care responsible for paying for that care, and a prisoner who does not fully pay "remain[s] obligated to reimburse the county" until the debt is satisfied. The opinion assumed the inmate was not eligible for care under the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act, so the county could not use its subrogation right to recover.

The Attorney General concluded the county may make the deduction. Article 104.002(d) lists two recovery methods, subrogation and a civil action, but nothing says those are the only methods, so they are not exclusive. The statute sets no time limit and does not distinguish between an inmate who is still locked up and one whose earlier incarceration has ended; the obligation simply continues until paid. The jail-account rules do not prohibit recovering for care from a current or a previous incarceration. On top of that, a county has implied authority to use broad discretion to accomplish its statutory rights, and here it has a right to reimbursement. The one important limit: an inmate has a property interest in the funds in the account, so the county cannot take the money arbitrarily and must follow applicable due-process requirements. With that caveat, the county may deduct from the inmate's account the funds needed to recover the cost of medical expenses from a previous term of incarceration.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2007. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Code of Criminal Procedure article 104.002, the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act, and the Jail Standards rules on inmate accounts may have been amended since 2007, and due-process case law continues to develop. Confirm the current statutes, rules, and the specific procedures a county must follow before relying on this analysis.

Who this opinion affected (as of 2007)

County sheriffs and jail operators: The opinion told them a county may recover an inmate's unpaid medical, dental, or health-care costs by deducting from the inmate's commissary or trust account, including for care from an earlier incarceration, so long as due process is provided.

County-jail inmates: The opinion confirmed that the obligation to reimburse the county for medical care continues until paid and does not vanish when a person is released and later returns, but also that an inmate has a property interest in the account funds protected by due process.

The Texas Commission on Jail Standards: The opinion answered the Commission's question by confirming the deduction is permissible under article 104.002(d), with the due-process condition.

Common questions

Can a Texas jail charge an inmate's commissary account for medical care?
Yes, based on this opinion. The Attorney General concluded a county may deduct from the account to recover medical, dental, or health-related costs the inmate is obligated to repay under article 104.002(d), if due process is followed.

Does it matter that the medical care was during a previous jail stay?
No. The opinion explained the obligation continues until the debt is paid and does not distinguish between a current and a previous incarceration.

Aren't subrogation and a lawsuit the only ways to recover?
No. The opinion concluded the two methods article 104.002(d) lists are not exclusive, and a deduction from the inmate's account is also permitted.

What protection does the inmate have?
The opinion stressed that an inmate has a property interest in the account funds, so the county must comply with applicable due-process requirements and cannot take the money arbitrarily.

Background and statutory framework

The inmate account is composed of money taken at intake, earned during incarceration, or received from others for the inmate's use, and is used for commissary purchases (37 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 265.4(a)(11), 269.1(2)(D), (G) (2006); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.014(a) (Vernon 2004); Hatfield v. Scott, 306 F.3d 223, 224 (5th Cir. 2002)). Article 104.002 addresses expenses for county-jail prisoners: a county is generally liable for safekeeping expenses (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 104.002(a) (Vernon 2006)), but under subarticle (d) a prisoner who received medical, dental, or health-related services must pay for them, and unless the prisoner fully pays, "remain[s] obligated to reimburse the county," with the county also having a right of subrogation for an eligible county resident under the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act and authority to recover by civil action (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 104.002, 104.002(d) (Vernon 2006); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ch. 61 (Vernon 2001 & Supp. 2006); see also Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-413 (1996) at 3). The opinion assumed the inmate was not eligible under that Act, so subrogation was unavailable.

Nothing in article 104.002(d) or other law precludes recovery by account deduction. The subrogation and civil-action methods are not stated to be exclusive, the statute sets no time limit, and the obligation continues regardless of whether the person remains incarcerated. The jail-account rules do not prohibit recovering for care from a current or previous incarceration (37 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 265.4(11), 265.10, 269.1(2)(L) (2006); Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. ch. 351, subch. C (Vernon 2005)). A county has implied authority to exercise broad discretion in accomplishing its statutory rights (Anderson v. Wood, 152 S.W.2d 1084, 1085 (Tex. 1941); Wichita County v. Bonnin, 182 S.W.3d 415, 420 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied)). Because an inmate has a property interest in the account funds that the government may not arbitrarily abrogate (Brewer v. Collins, 857 S.W.2d 819, 823 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ)), the opinion conditioned the county's authority on compliance with applicable due-process requirements.

Citations

Statutes and rules:

• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 104.002, 104.002(a), 104.002(d) (Vernon 2006)
• Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ch. 61 (Vernon 2001 & Supp. 2006)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.014(a) (Vernon 2004)
• 37 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 265.4(a)(11), 265.10, 269.1(2)(D), (G), (L) (2006)
• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. ch. 351, subch. C (Vernon 2005)

Cases:

• Hatfield v. Scott, 306 F.3d 223, 224 (5th Cir. 2002)
• Anderson v. Wood, 152 S.W.2d 1084, 1085 (Tex. 1941)
• Wichita County v. Bonnin, 182 S.W.3d 415, 420 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied)
• Brewer v. Collins, 857 S.W.2d 819, 823 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-0534
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2007/ga0534.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain - the linked PDF is authoritative.

GREG ABBOTT

March 26, 2007

Mr. Adan Munoz, Jr.
Executive Director
Texas Commission on Jail Standards
Post Office Box 12985
Austin, Texas 78711

Opinion No. GA-0534

Re: Whether a county may deduct from a county-jail inmate's commissary account funds necessary to recover costs for medical expenses incurred during a previous incarceration in the county jail, for which the inmate is obligated to reimburse the county under Code of Criminal Procedure article 104.002(d) (RQ-0537-GA)

Dear Mr. Munoz:

Under Code of Criminal Procedure article 104.002(d), a county-jail inmate is obligated to reimburse the county for medical, dental, and health-related services the county has provided to the inmate. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 104.002(d) (Vernon 2006). On behalf of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, you ask whether a county may deduct from a county-jail inmate's "commissary account" funds necessary to recover costs for medical expenses incurred during a previous incarceration in the county jail.

Although you do not explain what you mean by the term "commissary account," we understand you to refer to an account composed of monies taken from the inmate upon intake into the county jail, earned by the inmate during incarceration, or received from others for the inmate's use during the inmate's incarceration. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1; see also 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§ 265.4(a)(11) (2006) (Tex. Comm'n on Jail Standards, Inmate Files) (requiring a county to establish a file on each inmate taken into a county jail, including an "inmate property inventory"); 269.1(2)(D), (G) (Tex. Comm'n on Jail Standards, Record System) (requiring a sheriff or other county-jail operator to maintain a record on each inmate including "property" and "commissary"); cf. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 501.014(a) (Vernon 2004) (requiring the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to take possession of an inmate's money upon admission and "all money the inmate receives . . . during confinement . . . and . . . [to] credit the money to an account created for the inmate"). The purpose of the account is to enable the inmate "to make purchases in the prison commissary." Hatfield v. Scott, 306 F.3d 223, 224 (5th Cir. 2002).

Article 104.002 pertains to expenses for county-jail prisoners. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 104.002 (Vernon 2006). A county is generally "liable for all expenses incurred in the safekeeping of prisoners confined in the county jail or kept under guard by the county." Id. art. 104.002(a). Under subarticle (d), however, a county may be reimbursed by the prisoner for the costs of medical, dental, or health-related services received during imprisonment:

A person who is or was a prisoner in a county jail and received medical, dental, or health[-]related services from a county or a hospital district shall be required to pay for such services when they are rendered. If such prisoner is an eligible county resident [under the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act, Health and Safety Code chapter 61], the county or hospital district providing the services has a right of subrogation to the prisoner's right of recovery from any source, limited to the cost of services provided. A prisoner, unless the prisoner fully pays for the cost of services received, shall remain obligated to reimburse the county or hospital district for any medical, dental, or health services provided, and the county or hospital district may apply for reimbursement in the manner provided by [c]hapter 61, Health and Safety Code. A county or hospital district shall have authority to recover the amount expended in a civil action.

Id. art. 104.002(d) (emphasis added). As this office has stated, "[s]ubarticle (d) makes clear that [an] inmate [who is not eligible for health care under the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act] is ultimately responsible for the cost of medical services he or she receives while the inmate is incarcerated, whether the services are provided by a county or a hospital district." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-413 (1996) at 3.

We assume you ask about an inmate who is not eligible for health care under the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. ch. 61 (Vernon 2001 & Supp. 2006); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 104.002(d) (Vernon 2006) (providing the county with a right of subrogation to an inmate's right of recovery under the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act). Thus, the county cannot obtain reimbursement by exercising its right of subrogation to the prisoner's right of recovery. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 104.002(d) (Vernon 2006).

Nothing in article 104.002(d), nor in any other law of which we are aware, precludes a county from obtaining reimbursement in the manner you describe. Article 104.002(d) lists two means by which a county may recover the costs of medical, dental, or health-related services from a county-jail inmate, by subrogation to the prisoner's right to recover from any source and by filing a civil action, but nothing in subarticle (d) indicates that these means are intended to be exclusive. See id. Nor does article 104.002(d) set a time limit on the inmate's obligation to reimburse the county. Id. To the contrary, subarticle (d) expressly indicates that a person who was incarcerated at the county jail "remain[s] obligated to reimburse the county" until the debt is paid and does not appear to distinguish between a person who remains incarcerated and a person whose incarceration has ended. Id. In addition, nothing in the rules pertaining to inmate accounts prohibits the county from obtaining reimbursement from an account for medical, dental, and health-related services incurred during the current or a previous incarceration. See 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§ 265.4(11), .10, 269.1(2)(L) (2006) (Tex. Comm'n on Jail Standards, Inmate Files, Inmate Property Checking, Record System); see also TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. ch. 351, subch. C (Vernon 2005) ("Operation of County Jails").

Moreover, a county has implied authority to exercise broad discretion in accomplishing its statutory rights. See Anderson v. Wood, 152 S.W.2d 1084, 1085 (Tex. 1941); accord Wichita County v. Bonnin, 182 S.W.3d 415, 420 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied). Here, a county has a right to reimbursement from the inmate and may use discretion in determining how to accomplish that right, so long as the county complies with applicable due-process requirements. See Brewer v. Collins, 857 S.W.2d 819, 823 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ) (determining that an inmate has a property interest in funds in the inmate's trust fund and that the government may not "arbitrarily abrogate[]" the inmate's property right).

Assuming compliance with applicable due-process requirements, therefore, a county may deduct from a county-jail inmate's account funds necessary to recover the costs of medical expenses incurred during a previous term of incarceration in the county jail, for which the inmate must reimburse the county under Code of Criminal Procedure article 104.002(d).

SUMMARY

A county may deduct from a county-jail inmate's account funds necessary to recover the costs of medical expenses incurred during a previous term of incarceration in the county jail, for which the inmate is required to reimburse the county under Code of Criminal Procedure article 104.002(d). The county must comply with applicable due-process requirements.

Very truly yours,

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

KENT C. SULLIVAN
First Assistant Attorney General

ELLEN L. WITT
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

NANCY S. FULLER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Kymberly K. Oltrogge
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

Footnotes

[1] Letter from Adan Munoz, Jr., Executive Director, Texas Commission on Jail Standards, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas (Oct. 2, 2006) (on file with the Opinion Committee, also available at http://www.oag.state.tx.us) [hereinafter Request Letter]. You question specifically whether a "county jail" may deduct from a county-jail inmate's account for medical expenses incurred during a previous incarceration. Id. Because Code of Criminal Procedure article 104.002(d) obligates an inmate to reimburse the county, we have restated your question to focus on the county's authority to make the deduction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 104.002(d) (Vernon 2006).