Texas Attorney General Opinion: M-870 Page: 5 of 7
7 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon. John A. Menefees page 5
to a hospital outside the district and legally pay for such.out-
of-district expenses.
Attorney General's Opinion No. C-334 (1964) held that
a hospital district created pursuant to the foregoing constitu-
tional provision assumes the responsibility for medical care of
indigents within its district that was theretofore imposed on
the county commissioners court pursuant to Articles 2351 and 4438,
Vernon's Civil Statutes.
Attorney General's Opinion No, C-646 (1966) held that
Section 9 of Article IX of the Constitution of Texas does not
permit a county in which a hospital district is created pursuant
thereto to expend tax monies for medical and hospital services.
We are of the opinion that, under the circumstances set
forth in your letter, the provisions of Articles 1037 and 1040 of
the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, supra, relating to the
liability of a county for medical bills of prisoners, must yield
to the express broad language of Section 9 of Article IX of the
Constitution of Texas which is underscored, supra, and to the
underscored language of the Act oreating the McCamey County
Hospital District (Article 4494q4 note, Vernon's Civil Statutes,
supra), The language covers $ndigents and needy inhabitants,
whether or not they are prisoners.
While a county may, by statute, be given authority in
certain areas, this authority may, by constitutional provision,
be delegated to another entity. See Attorney General's Opinion
No. C-334 (1964), supra.
Accordingly, you are advised that, under the particular
circumstances set forth in your letter, the McCamey County Hospital
District, the district of the residence of the indigent prisoner,
is liable for the medical bills incurred in his treatment, not-
withstanding 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.
Attorney General's Opinion No. MI171 (1967), supra.
As your first question has been answered in the negative,
we do not deem it necessary to consider your second question.
Your third question is answered in the affirmative.-4243-
(M.870)
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: M-870, text, May 25, 1971; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth270098/m1/5/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.