Case Information
*1 ‘THE A~ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTI~~II. Tsxsan
GERALD C. WARN
Eon. B. Y. Gunningham
bounty Auditor
NavarPo County
Corsioana, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-2392
Re: Should Navarro County pay burrial expenses of patients sent to the State Sanatorium?
Your recent request for an opinion of~this department on the question as 5s herein stated has been Teoaived. from your letter as follows:
%n’several oooasions Navarro County has sent patients the State Sanatorium and on some few oooasions these patients die while in the hospital and the undertakers re- quire Navarro County to pay for the burial expense.
“We do not set up 5n our budget any monies for this purpose and I am wondering if these patients after being sent to the SanatroiUm.and aooepted by:them,are- notwards of the State of Texas instead of Navarro County.
“So far I have not paid any burial expense and I may be wrong in my OpiniOn.~ The Dootors tell me that the Sanatorium or the State of Texas have no money foTthLs expense. Will you k%ndly advise whether Navarro County should pay this burial expense or 5.a it an obligation the State of Texas.”
Article 2351, Vernonrs hnnotated 0ivil Statutes, provides In t oourt shall “provide for part that eaoh oommissioners of paupers”. Under the,above mentloned’statute it 5s inoumbent on oommis- aloners* oourts t6 provide the burial of paupers, has been sald~that this is a duty which oounties owe to every au er regardless of whether or not he has been formally iieoyared a pauper. But 5r1 Order to fix the 15ab515ty of the oounty for burialexpenses, notice to the proper authorities and their permission obtained thsburial. ‘,“xW J;l;? Vol. 32, p. 612; MoNorton vs. Val Verde County, 25 . .
Hon. E. Y. Cunningham, page 2, o-2392 In 0888 of MoNorton vs. Val Verde County, supra, it was held of paupera dying b a that a oounty is not liable fOT ooffins la in charge of the atate, under tha pesthouse whloh laws.
We ,fTom the above mentioned oaae as follows:
“The only question presented for our deolslon 1s as to the llabillty of the ,oounty for the coffins of those who died ln the pesthouse while the state had oharge of it under the quarantine laws. Artiole 1514, aubd. 10, Rev. St., makes it incumbent on the oounty to provide for the burial of paupers ; and this 5s a duty the oounty owes to every pauper, no matter whether he has been formally deolared a pauper by the county or not. Whenever it 5s aaoertalned that a man has died, who was a pauper, it beoomes the duty of the county to provide for his burial. But in order flx the liability of’ the bounty fOT the burlal expenses, exoept in extreme oases, notice the county judge, or some oounty oomm5ss5oner. It would open the door to frauds on the counties if individual citizens are given the authority to decide who are paupers. The instances will be rare indeed when any great lnoonvenlenoe will arise from notifying the proper authorities of the ,death of a pauper, and obtalnlng proper authority the burial. There oan bs no doubt that, if the dootor ln charge of the peathouse has been in the employ of the oounty, it would have been responsible for the oofflns furnished thoffe who had been confined and died there, if they were paupers. Under artlole 4090e, Saylee Ann. St., it 5s made the duty of the governor or the health offioar, ln oases of emergenay, to declare quarantine against any infectious or oontagious dleease, la provided in article 40901 that all coats and expenses of enforoing shall be paid by the state. The object
of quarantine 1s to prevent the entranoe or spread of disease, and we are of the opinion that, to fully meet &e demands of an effiolent quarantine, it would, be necessary ;;a;;;;d5tloualy bury those who die in the quarantlna If the state is in oharge of the quarantine, expense of the burlal of the paupers who die 5x1 their The burial of those who oharge would rest upon the state. die in a quarantine station in charge of the state would~ be a part of the neoesaary ooat and expense’ of enforolng Eve if the oounty had and malntalnlng the quarantine. held contr~ol of the pesthouse, it wou \ d seem that oharge of maintaining the quarantlne irou3.d Ultimately be ohargeable the stats. Artials 4097. are of the opinion that there 5s no error .-in the .jyd&men,t, and it ie aff5rmed.t’ I &tloIe 3241, ‘Vermont8 Annotated Civil Statutes, reada, In part, as follows 1
Hon. E. Y. Cunnlngham, page 3* O-2392
“Patients admltted~to said institut~ions ~shall be of three olaseea, to-wit:
“1. Indigent pub150 patients.
fi2. Non-indigent pub110 ,patIente.
it3. Private patients.
“1ndlgent:publio .patFents are thoae who possess no property of any klnd nor have any one legally responsible their support, and who are unable to reimburse State. This olass shall be supported at the expense of the State.
‘Our, bplnlon‘No. O-2021 holds in effeot that the Board of Con- trol has power to enter into a binding oontraot the pre- paratlon and burial lnddgent inmates of oertaIn state eleemosynary InstItutlon. are enolosing herewith a oopy of this opinion-for your convenienoe.
A representative of the Hoard of Control has Informed ua that said Board has made arrangements with various undertakers bury Indigent inmates who die in the different eleemosynary Institutions of the State, inoludlng the State.Tuberoulosis Sanatorium; where the relatives OT friends do not claim remains of the deoeased, and that the State makes no demand on the county of the resident of the deceased to pay suoh expenses. In certain articles dlsouaaed in the case of MoMorton v. Val Verde County, supra, it mas made the duty of the Governor OT the health offioer, in oases of emergenoy, to deolare infeotloue or contagious diseases, was further provided that. all oosts and expenses of enforcing should be paid by the State. In view of the above mentioned case of MoMorIson v. Val Verde County, we believe that Artlole 3241, aupra, Imposing upon the State the duty to support and pay the expensea oft pub110 $ndIgent patlents would alao impose upon the State the duty to bury such patients when they die in the State Sanatorium and various other eleemosynary institutions of the State.
Therefore, you are respectfully advised that it la the opinion of this .department that Navarro County aould not be liable ‘fdr the burial expenses of publio, indigent patients who reside
in said oounty and die In the State Sanatorium. Such expense ia an obligation of the State of Texas.
Hon. E. Y. GunnFngham, page 4, O-2392
Trusting that the foregoing fully ahswers your inquiry, we are,
Yours very truly ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS a/ Ardell Williams BY Ardell Williams Assistant p$dcf3
APPROVED JUNE 26, 1940
a/ GERALD C. MANN
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
APPROVED OPINION CONMITTEE
By BWB, Ohairman