Who paid an indigent prisoner's medical expenses when the prisoner was moved from the Texas Department of Corrections to a county jail on a bench warrant?

Texas AG Opinion JM-730: Medical Costs for a Prisoner in County Jail

Plain-English summary

The Hunt County Attorney asked who had to pay medical expenses for an indigent prisoner who was serving a state prison sentence but had been transferred to a county jail on a bench warrant to face a felony charge. While in the county jail, the prisoner's jaw was broken and he received surgery at a local hospital.

The Attorney General concluded that the county was responsible. Article 6166g required the Texas Department of Corrections to care for prisoners "confined therein," while Code of Criminal Procedure article 104.002 made a county liable for expenses incurred in safeguarding prisoners confined in the county jail or kept under county guard.

The opinion read "confined" according to physical location. A bench warrant brought a state prisoner from the penitentiary to stand trial in another case. While the prisoner was physically held in the county jail, he was no longer confined in the state prison system for purposes of these expense statutes. Article 104.002 therefore governed his medical costs.

The Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act did not change the result. The opinion treated articles 104.002 and 6166g as specific statutes governing particular custody settings, while the indigent-health law applied generally.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987. 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

Who owed the prisoner's hospital expenses?

The county. The opinion concluded that the prisoner was confined in the county jail when the injury and treatment occurred, so article 104.002 placed the expense on the county.

Did the prisoner's existing state sentence make the Texas Department of Corrections liable?

No. The opinion focused on the prisoner's physical place of confinement rather than the sentence he was serving. While held in county jail under the bench warrant, he was not "confined in" the state corrections facility.

What was the purpose of the bench warrant?

The opinion described a bench warrant as the common-law writ used to bring a convict from the penitentiary to trial in another case.

Did the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act control instead?

No. The opinion concluded that the general indigent-health statute did not displace the more specific statutes allocating responsibility for people confined in state prisons and county jails.

Background and statutory framework

Article 6166g placed management of the Texas Department of Corrections and care of prisoners confined there with state corrections authorities. Article 104.002(a) made a county liable for expenses incurred in safeguarding prisoners confined in its jail or held under its guard, while creating stated exceptions for certain intercounty transfers.

Because both laws used the word "confined," the opinion applied the ordinary meaning of restraint within limits. It concluded that physical custody determined which statute applied. The prisoner was in the county jail when the medical expense arose, so county responsibility followed under article 104.002.

Citations and references

Statutory authorities:

• Article 6166g, V.T.C.S. (state corrections management and prisoner care)
• Code of Criminal Procedure article 104.002(a) (county jail and guard expenses)
• Government Code article 10(i), section 311.011(a) (ordinary meaning of statutory words)
• Article 4438f, V.T.C.S. (Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act)

Cases:

• Ex parte Lowe, 251 S.W. 506, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 1923)
• Gaines v. State, 53 S.W. 623, 624 (Tex. Crim. App. 1899)
• Ex parte Hudson, 655 S.W.2d 206, 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)
• Ex parte Alvarez, 519 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)
• American Canal Co. of Texas v. Dow Chemical Co., 380 S.W.2d 662, 666 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston 1964, writ dism'd)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0730
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0730.pdf

Original opinion text

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS

June 26, 1987

Honorable Russell P. Brooks
Hunt County Attorney
P. O. Box 1097
Greenville, Texas 75401

Opinion No. JM-730

Re: Responsibility for medical expenses incurred on behalf of an indigent prisoner transferred from a county jail to the Texas Department of Corrections on a bench warrant

Dear Mr. Brooks:

You ask about payment of medical expenses for an indigent prisoner incarcerated in a county jail. Specifically, you ask about a prisoner who was serving a sentence in the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC) and was transferred from TDC to a county jail, pursuant to a bench warrant, in order to stand trial on a felony charge. While he was in the county jail, his jaw was broken and he underwent surgery at a local hospital. You ask whether TDC or the county jail is liable for his medical expenses.

Article 6166g, V.T.C.S., provides:

The Texas [Board of Corrections], together with the [director] hereinafter provided for, shall be vested with the exclusive management and control of the [Department of Corrections], and all properties belonging thereto, subject only to the limitations of this Act, and shall be responsible for the management of the affairs of the [Department of Corrections] and for the proper care, treatment, feeding, clothing and management of the prisoners confined therein.

That statute requires TDC to provide medical care for "prisoners confined therein." See generally Attorney General Opinion JM-580 (1986).

Article 104.002(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs liability for expenses for the care of persons incarcerated in county jails:

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 prisoner is liable for the expenses described by this article. (Emphasis added).

Article 104.002(a) makes counties liable for medical care provided to indigent prisoners confined in county jail. Attorney General Opinion Nos. JM-643 (1987); JM-487 (1986); H-703 (1975); M-870 (1971).

The prisoner in question was transferred from TDC to the county jail pursuant to a bench warrant. A bench warrant is the common law writ used to bring a convict confined in the penitentiary to trial in another case. Ex parte Lowe, 251 S.W. 506, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 1923); Gaines v. State, 53 S.W. 623, 624 (Tex. Crim. App. 1899). Both article 6166g, V.T.C.S., and article 104.002 of the Code of Criminal Procedure discuss liability for prisoners "confined in" prisons and jails, respectively. The ordinary meaning of "to confine" is "to restrain within limits." Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed.). Words in statutes should be given their ordinary meanings. Gov't Code art. 10(i), § 311.011(a). Therefore, we construe "confined" in article 6166g and article 104.002 to refer to a prisoner's physical presence in a prison or jail. Thus, the prisoner in question was no longer "confined in" TDC while he was in the county jail. Cf. Ex parte Hudson, 655 S.W.2d 206, 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (prisoner may receive credit toward TDC sentence for time spent in county jail if TDC places a "hold" on prisoner); Ex parte Alvarez, 519 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). Rather, he was "confined in" the county jail. See also Code Crim. Proc. art. 104.002 (specifically excepting prisoners brought from another county on a change of venue, for safekeeping, or for a habeas corpus hearing). Therefore, article 104.002 of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than article 6166g, V.T.C.S., governs liability for medical expenses of the indigent prisoner you describe.

You also ask whether the enactment in 1985 of the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act, article 4438f, V.T.C.S., affects our answer to your question. Both article 104.002 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 6166g are specific statutes governing indigent health care in specific situations. The Indigent Health Care Act governs indigent health care generally. We concluded in Attorney General Opinion JM-643 (1987) that the Indigent Health Care Act does not affect the application of article 104.002 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, we conclude that the Indigent Health Care Act does not affect the application of article 6166g, V.T.C.S. See American Canal Co. of Texas v. Dow Chemical Co., 380 S.W.2d 662, 666 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston 1964, writ dism'd).

SUMMARY

A county is liable for the medical expenses of a prisoner confined in county jail who was transferred from the Texas Department of Corrections to the county jail pursuant to a bench warrant.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General