Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1967 )


Menu:
  • Hon. James K. Walker        Opinion No.M-171
    County Attorney
    Cochran County Courthouse   Re:   Whether Cochran County "
    Morton, Texas                     Texas, has authority to pay
    public owned hospitals out-
    '     side the county for hospital
    and medical services render-
    ed to indigent inhabitants
    of the county.under the'cir-
    Dear Mr. Walker:                  cumstances stated.
    You have requested the opinion of this office as to
    whether Cochran County, Texas, is authorized to pay for the
    medical care of an indigent resident of Cochran County, Texas,
    in a public hospital outside of Cochran County, Texas, after
    the creation of the Cochran Memorial Hospital District, whose
    boundaries are co-extensive with the boundaries of Cochran
    County, Texas. You further state in your letter that a med-
    ical doctor practicing in the Cochran County Memorial Hos-
    pital has recommended that an indigent patient be sent to
    the John Sealy Hospital for care and treatment which cannot
    be supplied at the local hospital. Article IX, Section 9, of
    the Texas Constitution provides as follows:
    "Sec. 9. The Legislature  niay by law pro-
    vide for the creation, establishment, maintenance
    and operation of hospital districts composed of
    one or more counties or all or any part of one
    or more counties with power to issue bonds for
    the purchase, construction, acquisition, repair
    or renovation of buildings and improvements and
    equipping same, for hospital.purposes; providing
    for the transfer to the hospital district of the
    title to any land, buildings, improvements and
    equipment located wholly within the district which
    mav be lointlv or seoaratelv owned bv anv citv, town
    or-county, providing-that any district so created
    shall assume full responsibility for providing
    rn9                                       nh rtants
    and assume the outstanding indebtedness incurred
    by cities, towns and counties for hospital pur-
    poses prior to the creation of the district, if
    same are located wholly within its boundaries,
    .
    . .   :
    Hon. James X. Walker, page 2, (M-171)
    and a pro rata portion of such indebtedness based
    upon the then last approved tax assessment rolls
    of the included cities towns and counties if
    less than all the territory thereof is included
    within the district boundaries . . .II (Smphasis
    added.)
    Thereafter the Legislature.passed House Bill 1233,
    Acts 60th Legislature, Regular Session 1967, Chapter 494,
    page 1113 (Art. 4494q, V.C.S.), known as the Cochran Memorial
    Hospital District Bill, pursuant to Article IX, Section 9,
    and its pertinent provisions read as follows:
    "Section 1. Authority to create. Pursuant to
    authority granted by the provisions of Section 9,
    Article IX, Constitution of the State of Texas,
    Cochran Memorial Hospital District is hereby au-
    thorized to be created and as created shall have
    boundaries co-extensive with the boundaries of
    Cochran County, Texas, and possess such rights,
    powers, and duties as are hereinafter prescribed.
    "Sec. 2. Purposes of district. The district
    herein authorized to be created shall take over
    and there shall be transferred to it title to all
    lands, buildings, improvements, and equipment in
    anywise pertaining to the hospitals or hospital
    systems    owned by Cochran County and any city or
    town within such county, and thereafter the dis-
    trict shall provide for the establishment of a
    hospital system by the purchase, construction, ac-
    quisition, repair or renovation of buildings and
    equipment, and equipping the same and the admin-
    debtedness which shall have been incurred by any
    city or town or by Cochran County for hospital
    purposes prior to the creation of said district.
    II
    . . .
    "Sec. 9. Purchases and expenditures. The
    board of directors of such district shall harthe
    . :1       .   .   -1
    .
    Hon. James X. Walker, page 3, (W-171)
    power to prescribe the method and manner of making
    purchases and expenditures, by and for such hospi-
    tal district, and also shall be authorized to pre-
    scribe all accounting and control procedures and
    to make such rules and regulations as may be re-
    quired to carry out the provisions of this Act.
    II
    .   .   .
    "Sec. 17.             District alone to incur indebted-
    II
    .   .   .   '   (Emphasis added.)
    In addition to the above quoted provisions, the Act
    provides for the levying of taxes not to exceed seventy-five
    cents ($.75) on the One Hundred Dollar valuation; authorizes
    bonds to be issued in accordance with general law for the
    building of any facilities necessary to carry out its pur-
    poses; states manner of engaging a depository bank for the
    district: exempts the bonds from taxation: gives power of
    eminent domain; and creates a framework for screening patients
    as indigents.
    The responsibilities of the commissioners court in
    Article 2351, Vernon's Civil Statutes, and Article 4438, Ver-
    non's Civil Statutes, are now the duties of Cochran Memorial
    Hospital District. Attorney General's Opinion No. C-334:(1964).
    The question therefore necessarily arises as to the authority
    of the hospital district to pay for indigent care in a public
    institution outside of its boundaries, either under its assumed
    powers of the commissioners court or powers given to it under
    the Constitution and statute creating it.
    The leading case prohibiting the payment by com-
    missioners courts for medical treatment of an indigent out-
    -820.
    .I                                                             . .       _.
    .
    Hon. James X. Walker, page 4, (d-171)
    side of the county in a private hospital is Willacy County v.
    Valley Baptist Hospital, 
    29 S.W.2d 456
    (Tex.Civ.App. 1930, no
    writ history). The Court stated on page 458:
    11
    .   .   .
    "Under the provisions of article 4438, the
    county was under no duty to send Barbosa to any
    hospital, there being no public hospital in the
    county, and under the implied restriction of this
    provision it is doubtful if the county could be
    bound by the commissioners' court, certainly not
    otherwise, to send him to a hospital without the
    county, at public expense.
    II
    . . . But the liabilities of counties are
    fixed by law and cannot be extended by the courts
    beyond the plain authority of the statutes.
    I,
    . . .I,
    The Court's opinion above noted is controlling as
    to the interpretation of the law, on the facts and law that
    were presented to the court at the time of the decision.
    It is our opinion, however, that Article IX, Sec-
    tion 9, of the Constitution has enhanced the powers and duties
    of the hospital district, as opposed to the commissioners
    courts, and this is carried forward in the enabling legisla-
    tion. The oertinent orovision of Article IX. Section 9. is:
    "that any district so-created shall assumesfull responsibility
    for providing medical and hospital care for its needy inhab-
    itants . . .' (Emphasis added.) Similar language is con-
    tainea in Section 2 of H.B. 1233 providing purposes of the
    district, as follows: ".      Such district shall assume full
    responsibility for providing'medical and hospital c~arefor its
    needy inhabitants . . .* (Emphasis added.)
    Specifically, it is our opinion that when a hospital
    district is created, it is no longer bound by the distinctions
    betweena pauper, an indigent and other restrictions which con-
    tinue to be valid for county purposes. The Willacy County case,
    although binding on commissioners courts in counties where
    countywide hospital districts have not been created, is not
    applicable to a hospital district. Limitations on the au-
    -821-
    _   .
    Hon. James K. Walker, page 5, (M-171)
    thority of a hospital district are determined by the constitu-
    tional provision and statute whereunder it was formed and not
    by the statutory powers and limitations thereof of commissioners
    courts.
    i.t.
    kgseargl from yaw     letter, that there is no public
    hospital in COchran  C'ountywhich can "care" for the needy
    inhabitant, either medically or as a hospital. The district's
    responsibility for providing such care can be exercised in
    sending such needy inhabitant to a public hospital outside
    of the district and under such circumstances would have the
    authority to'pay for the same.
    SUMMARY'
    The Cochran Memorial Hospital District, by
    virtue of the provisions of Article IX, Section
    9 of the Constitution.of Texas, and Section 2 of
    House Bill 1233, 60th Legislature, R.S. 1967, (Art.
    4494q, V.C.S.) has the full responsibility for pro-
    viding medical and hospital care for the needy in-
    habitants of such hospital district. Where the hos-
    pital district cannot discharge its full responsi-
    bility to such needy inhabitant within the hospital
    district be,causeof a lack of sufficient medical or
    hospital facilities, it may send the inhabitant to
    a hospital facility outside the district and legally
    pay for such expense.
    6 very truly,
    ai==
    . MARTIN
    enerai of Texas
    Prepared by Pat Cain
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman
    Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman
    W. V. Geppert
    -822-
    I..           .
    .   .       .   _
    Hon. James X. Walker, page 6,   (M-171)
    Pat Bailey
    Brock Jones
    Bill Allen
    A. J. CARUBBI, JR.
    Staff Legal Assistant
    -823-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-171

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1967

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017