Can a court force a Texas justice of the peace to change the cause of death on a death certificate?

TX AG Opinion GA-0718: Can a court make a JP change the cause of death on a certificate?

Plain-English summary

The Kendall County Attorney asked about the authority of a justice of the peace and a county court at law to cause an amendment to a death certificate's stated cause of death. In 2005, a Kendall County justice of the peace determined that Colonel Philip Shue had committed suicide. In 2008, in a civil suit between an individual and an insurance company, a county court at law in Kendall County issued an order directing the Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit (TDSHS) to take all actions necessary to amend the death certificate to reflect homicide as the cause. TDSHS forwarded the order to the current justice of the peace.

On the first question, whether a justice of the peace acting under Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 49 can be required to amend the cause of death, the opinion explained that a JP conducting an inquest signs the death certificate and the medical certification, and may reopen the inquest if doing so may reveal a different cause or circumstances of death. A registered death certificate can be amended by filing an amending certificate to correct a record shown by satisfactory evidence to be inaccurate. While the statutes do not provide for direct review of a JP's inquest determinations, a court has held that a JP's exercise of discretion under chapter 49 is reviewable for abuse of discretion, and in a proper case a writ of mandamus may issue to correct a clear abuse. So the opinion could not say as a matter of law that a JP can never be required to amend a death certificate's cause of death.

On the second question, whether the county court at law had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction to order TDSHS (a nonparty), the opinion explained that jurisdiction depends on numerous factors. Subject-matter jurisdiction is determined from the pleadings, and personal jurisdiction over a party is obtained by service, waiver, or consent and determined from the record. Without the pleadings and records, the opinion could not advise whether the court had authority to order TDSHS in this instance.

On the third question, whether the order to TDSHS has any force over the justice of the peace, the opinion noted the order did not mention the JP or require the JP to do or refrain from anything, so it was not likely the order could be enforced against the JP on these facts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2009. 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.

The Code of Criminal Procedure inquest provisions, the Health and Safety Code vital-statistics provisions, and the court-jurisdiction statutes may have been amended since 2009. Confirm current law before relying on anything below.

Who this opinion affected (as of 2009)

Justices of the peace conducting inquests: The opinion explained that their chapter 49 discretion is reviewable for abuse of discretion and correctable by mandamus in a proper case, so a JP is not categorically immune from being required to amend a death certificate.

Families and litigants disputing a cause of death: The opinion described the available paths, reopening an inquest, amending a certificate for an inaccurate record, and mandamus for clear abuse, without deciding any particular case.

Courts and the state vital-statistics unit: The opinion explained that whether a court had jurisdiction to order TDSHS depended on the pleadings and record, and that an order not naming the JP was unlikely to bind the JP.

Common questions

Can a JP's suicide finding ever be overturned?
The opinion explained that a JP's chapter 49 discretion is subject to abuse-of-discretion review, and in a proper case a writ of mandamus may issue to correct a clear abuse, so the finding is not beyond challenge.

Did the AG say the county court's order was valid?
No. The opinion said whether the county court at law had jurisdiction to order TDSHS could not be determined without the pleadings and records of the case.

Does an order to the health department bind the justice of the peace?
The opinion said it was unlikely. The order did not mention the JP or direct the JP to act, so it was not likely enforceable against the JP on the facts described.

How does a death certificate get corrected?
The opinion noted a registered certificate may be amended by filing an amending certificate to complete or correct a record that is incomplete or shown by satisfactory evidence to be inaccurate.

Background and statutory framework

A justice of the peace conducting an inquest signs the death certificate and medical certification (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 49.16 (Vernon 2006); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 193.005(e) (Vernon Supp. 2008)) and may reopen the inquest if it may reveal a different cause or circumstances (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 49.041 (Vernon 2006)). A registered certificate may be amended to correct an inaccurate record (Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 191.028(b) (Vernon 2001)). A JP's chapter 49 discretion is reviewable for abuse of discretion, correctable by mandamus in a proper case (Mestiza v. De Leon, 8 S.W.3d 770, 772 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.)).

Courts have only the authority granted by the constitution and statutes (Chenault v. Phillips, 914 S.W.2d 140, 141 (Tex. 1996); see Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 21.001, 25.0003, 25.1322(a), 26.051 (Vernon 2004 & Supp. 2008)). Subject-matter jurisdiction is determined from the pleadings, and personal jurisdiction over a party from service, waiver, or consent in the record (Drake v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 600 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1980); In re Suarez, 261 S.W.3d 880, 882-83 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); Meridian Hotels, Inc. v. LHO Financing P'ship, 97 S.W.3d 731, 737 (Tex. App.-Dallas, no pet.)). A court generally cannot order a judge who is a necessary party but not named in the petition (Waddell v. Huckabee, 807 S.W.2d 455, 459 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding)).

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 49.16, 49.041 (Vernon 2006)
• Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 193.005(e) (Vernon Supp. 2008), 191.028(b) (Vernon 2001)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 21.001, 25.0003, 25.1322(a), 26.051 (Vernon 2004 & Supp. 2008)

Cases:

• Mestiza v. De Leon, 8 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.)
• Chenault v. Phillips, 914 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. 1996)
• Drake v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 600 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. 1980)
• In re Suarez, 261 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding)
• Waddell v. Huckabee, 807 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding)
• Meridian Hotels, Inc. v. LHO Financing P'ship, 97 S.W.3d 731 (Tex. App.-Dallas, no pet.)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-0718
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2009/ga0718.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

GREG ABBOTT

June 1, 2009

The Honorable Don Allee
Kendall County Attorney
Kendall County Courthouse
201 East San Antonio Street, Suite 306
Boerne, Texas 78006-2050

Opinion No. GA-0718

Re: Authority of justice of the peace and county court at law to cause the amendment of a death certificate concerning the cause of death (RQ-0764-GA)

Dear Mr. Allee:

You ask about the authority of a justice of the peace and a county court at law to cause an amendment to a death certificate concerning the cause of death.[1] You relate that in 2005, a Kendall County justice of the peace determined that Colonel Philip Shue had committed suicide. Request Letter at 3. In 2008, in a civil suit between an individual and an insurance company, a county court at law in Kendall County issued an order that "directs the Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit ['TDSHS'] to take all actions necessary to amend" Colonel Shue's death certificate to reflect "homicide" as the cause of death. Id. at 4. TDSHS forwarded the order to the current Kendall County justice of the peace. Id.

You first ask whether a justice of the peace acting under chapter 49, subchapter A of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be required to amend the death certificate concerning the cause of death. Id. at 1, 5. A justice of the peace conducting an inquest under chapter 49 must sign the death certificate and the medical certification concerning the circumstances of the death. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 49.16 (Vernon 2006); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 193.005(e) (Vernon Supp. 2008). A justice of the peace also "may" reopen the inquest if doing so "may reveal a different cause or different circumstances of death." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 49.041 (Vernon 2006). A registered death certificate may be amended by filing an amending certificate "to complete or correct a record that is incomplete or proved by satisfactory evidence to be inaccurate." TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 191.028(b) (Vernon 2001). As you observe, the statutes do not provide for direct review of a justice's determinations with respect to an inquest. Request Letter at 5-6. Nevertheless, a court has held that a justice of the peace's exercise of discretion under chapter 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is subject to an abuse of discretion standard and, in the proper case, a writ of mandamus may issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion. Mestiza v. De Leon, 8 S.W.3d 770, 772 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.). Thus, we cannot say as a matter of law that a justice of the peace cannot be required to amend a death certificate concerning the cause of death.

You also ask whether the county court at law had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction to issue an order to TDSHS. A determination as to the jurisdiction of a court in a particular case requires the consideration of numerous factors. 1 McDONALD & CARLSON, TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE § 3:10 (2d ed. 2004) (discussing multiple elements of subject-matter jurisdiction). Thus, we advise generally about the issues you raise. First, you ask about the subject-matter jurisdiction of the county court at law; Texas courts have only the authority granted to them by the Texas Constitution and state statutes. Chenault v. Phillips, 914 S.W.2d 140, 141 (Tex. 1996).[2] Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction in a particular case must be determined according to the pleadings in the case. Second, you ask about the court's personal jurisdiction over TDSHS, a nonparty. Personal jurisdiction over a party may be obtained by service of process, waiver, or consent, see Drake v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 600 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1980). Whether a court has personal jurisdiction to issue an order to a party generally must be determined from the record. See In re Suarez, 261 S.W.3d 880, 882-83 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (holding that trial court would not have jurisdiction to enter an order against a state agency unless the record showed service of citation, appearance, or waiver). In sum, whether a court has subject-matter or personal jurisdiction to issue an order in a particular case cannot be determined without reference to the pleadings and other records of the proceedings. Thus, we cannot advise whether the county court at law had the authority to issue an order to TDSHS in this instance.

Finally, you ask broadly whether the order to TDSHS has "any force or effect over the actions of a justice of the peace." Request Letter at 8. The county court at law's order does not mention the justice of the peace, much less expressly or implicitly require the justice of the peace to do or refrain from any action. Thus, it is not likely that the order could be enforced against the justice of peace on the facts as you have explained them. Cf. Waddell v. Huckabee, 807 S.W.2d 455, 459 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding) (holding that court of appeals was "without authority to order a judge who is a necessary party and who is not named in the petition to vacate his order.").

SUMMARY

A justice of the peace's decisions in carrying out discretionary duties under chapter 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are subject to an abuse of discretion standard and, in the proper case, a writ of mandamus may issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion. Whether a county court at law has jurisdiction to issue an order to the Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, cannot be determined without reference to the pleadings and proceedings in the particular case. It is unlikely that a court order that is not directed to a justice of the peace could be enforced against the justice of the peace.

Very truly yours,

ANDREW WEBER
First Assistant Attorney General

JONATHAN K. FRELS
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

NANCY S. FULLER
Chair, Opinion Committee

William A. Hill
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[Footnote 1: See Request Letter at 1-2 (available at http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov).]

[Footnote 2: See, e.g., TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 21.001 (Vernon 2004) (court's inherent powers), 25.0003 (Vernon Supp. 2008) (general jurisdiction of county courts at law), 25.0004 (Vernon 2004) (powers of county court at law), 25.1322(a) (jurisdiction of Kendall County court at law), 26.051 (Vernon 2004) (county court writ power). See also Meridian Hotels, Inc. v. LHO Financing P'ship., 97 S.W.3d 731, 737 (Tex. App.-Dallas, no pet.) (discussing authority of county court at law having expanded jurisdiction).]