Which Texas county or hospital district had to pay medical bills for indigent prisoners jailed outside their home counties?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-487: Indigent Prisoner Medical Bills
Plain-English summary
Johnson County asked who owed medical expenses for two indigent prisoners who lived in Dallas and Tarrant Counties, were injured by officers in Hopkins County, received treatment in Franklin and Dallas Counties, and were later transferred to the Johnson County Jail. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0487.pdf
JM-487 applied the law governing care provided before September 1, 1985. It relied on earlier opinions holding that "the hospital district of which the indigent prisoner is a resident, rather than the county of incarceration, is liable" for medical care. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0487.pdf
The opinion concluded that the Dallas County Hospital District and Tarrant County Hospital District, not Johnson County, were liable for their residents' bills. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0487.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1986. 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.
Common questions
Did the county holding the prisoners have to pay these medical bills?
No. JM-487 placed liability on the hospital districts of the prisoners' residence under the law governing the pre-September 1985 treatment. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0487.pdf
Did it matter that treatment occurred outside the home hospital district?
No. The opinion quoted an earlier ruling that the resident district remained liable "notwithstanding the fact that he was treated outside the boundaries of that Hospital District." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0487.pdf
Did the newer Indigent Health Care Treatment Act apply?
No. JM-487 said assistance provided before the act's stated transition date was governed by the law and practice in effect when the assistance was provided. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0487.pdf
Background and statutory framework
The opinion discussed article 4438f and the recodified Code of Criminal Procedure article 104.002, but treated former articles 1037 and 1040 and article IX, section 9 of the Texas Constitution as controlling the older bills. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0487.pdf
Citations and references
- article 4438f, V.T.C.S.
- Code of Criminal Procedure article 104.002
- former Code of Criminal Procedure articles 1037 and 1040
- Texas Constitution article IX, section 9
- Attorney General Opinions H-703 (1975), M-807 (1971), and M-870 (1971)
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0487.pdf
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0487
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0487.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF via OCR. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
April 28, 1986
Honorable Dale Hanna
Johnson County Attorney
1st Floor, Courthouse
Cleburne, Texas 76031
Opinion No. JM-487
Re: Liability of a county for the hospital expenses of county nonresidents who commit an offense in a different county
Dear Mr. Hanna:
You have requested our opinion regarding the liability of Johnson County for the medical expenses incurred by two indigent prisoners who are not residents of the county. The two prisoners were injured by law enforcement officials in Hopkins County. You have also informed us that the two prisoners were treated at the Franklin County Hospital in Mount Vernon and the Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. They were transferred to the Johnson County Jail to await trial on aggravated kidnapping charges instituted by the Johnson County District Attorney. One of the prisoners is a resident of Dallas County and the Dallas County Hospital District and the other is a resident of Tarrant County and the Tarrant County Hospital District.
As a preliminary consideration, the liability of a county for the care of its indigent sick and prisoners is now governed by article 4438f, V.T.C.S., and article 104.002 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, article 4438f, the Indigent Health Care Treatment Act, provides that any health care assistance provided before September 1, 1986, is governed by the law and practice "in effect at the time that assistance [was] provided." See Acts 1985, 69th Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 1, § 15, at 46, effective August 29, 1985. Consequently, this act is inapplicable to your request. Article 104.002 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a recodification of several procedural statutes, including articles 1037 and 1040 of the code, which governed the liability of a county for the care and treatment of indigent prisoners. See Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1037, 1040, repealed by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 269, § 1, at 2324, effective September 1, 1985.
This office has concluded in two prior opinions that the hospital district of which the indigent prisoner is a resident, rather than the county of incarceration, is liable for the medical care and treatment of an indigent prisoner. See Attorney General Opinions H-703 (1975); M-807 (1971). In Attorney General Opinion M-870 (1971), the Attorney General considered the liability of a county for the medical expenses of an indigent prisoner whose residence was in a hospital district which included the county. Although the prisoner was provided services in a hospital located in a second hospital district, the opinion concluded that
the district of the residence of the indigent prisoner . . . is liable for the medical bills incurred in his treatment, notwithstanding the fact that he was a prisoner in the custody of the county sheriff, and further notwithstanding the fact that he was treated outside the boundaries of that Hospital District. (Emphasis added.)
Id. at 5. The rationale for this conclusion was that repealed articles 1037 and 1040 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must yield to the express broad language in section 9 of article IX of the Texas Constitution. See Tex. Const. art. IX, § 9; see also repealed Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1037, 1040; Attorney General Opinion H-703 (1975). Thus, we can conclude that the hospital districts of the residence of each of the two indigent prisoners are liable for the medical bills.
SUMMARY
The liability of a county for the care of its indigent prisoners for medical bills incurred before September 1, 1985 is governed by former articles 1037 and 1040 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article IX, section 9 of the Texas Constitution. Under those provisions, Dallas County Hospital District and the Tarrant County Hospital District, rather than Johnson County, are liable for the medical bills of their resident indigent prisoners incarcerated in Johnson County.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Tony Guillory
Assistant Attorney General
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1986 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.