Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1975 )

September 18, 1975
The Honorable John Lawhon Opinion No. H- 695
District and County Attorney
Denton County Re: Whether a county may
P. 0. Box 44 pay the director of its public
Denton, Texas 76201 health district a salary plus
fees for certain other services.
Dear Mr. Lawhon:
You have requested our opinion concerning the following questions:
(1) May a county pay the director of its public health
district a salary of $12, 000. 00 per year and also
pay that director or other member of his medical
firm $275. 00 per autopsy that he or a member of his
medlcal firm performs?
(2) May a county pay that director of his medical firm
additional fees for laboratory services performed
by them?
(3) May the health unit purchase drugs and other supplies
from that director or his firm?
You explain that t~he director and ot.her members of his firm are the
only practicing patho:logists in your county. Article 4447a, V. T. C. S. ,
provides statutory authorization for t,he formation of a health district.
Section 6 provides that the authority vested in the county health officer may
be transferred to the director of a health d,istrict. Section 5(b) provides that
the director “shall be compensated in accordance with the terms of the agree-
ment under which the dlst~rict is formed. ” The agreement in this instance
provides for the compensation of the director Tao be specified in the annual bud-
get.
I‘hus. the additional amount. if any. the director of the public health district
would receive for performing an autopsy would be determined in the annual budget.
Art~c.lc, 49. 0’3. Cocl~: of Crimin;lI Procedure, provides guidance as to the maximum
fee p<:r ,g,utopsy which can be paid.
p. 301s
,‘. ,
Your second and third questions concern cont.racts between a health
district and the director or his medlcal firm for laboratory services, drugs,
and other supplies not used in connection with an autopsy. You explain that
the director’s firm is the only firm performing the required laboratory services
in your county.
In Attorney General Opinion M-340 (1969) it was concluded that:
. . . It is contrary to public policy for a physician,
a member of a Board of Trustees of a community
center to receive compensation for patient. referral
from the center.
. . .
It is contrary t,o public policy of this State for
a member of a Board of Trustees of a community
center to be a member of a Board of Trustees and
a stockholder of corporations cont,racting with the
community center.
This determination was in reliance upon Meyers v. Walker, 276 S. W. 305, 307
(Tex. Civ.App. --Eastland 1925, no writ) in which it was held that:
If a public official directly or indirectly
has a pecuniary interest in a contract, no
matter how honest he may be, and al~though he
may not be influenced by the interest, such a
contract so made is violative of the spirit and
letter of our law, and is against public policy.
See Attorney General Opinions H-638 (1975), ‘WW-1241 (1962). V-640 (1948),
v-381 (1947). Accordingly, in our opinion any contract. express or implied,
between the director of a health district and a medical firm of which he is a
member is against pu’blic policy and should not be entered into.
SUMMAR’Y
Where aut.horized by the agreement forming
the public health district, the director of a district
may receive rompensat ion in addit ion t:o his regular
salary for the performance of.a properly authorized
autopsy.
p. 3016
A contract between the director of a health
district and a medical firm of which he is a
member is against public policy.
Attorney General of Texas
Opinion Committee
jad:
p. 3017